AANR Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, March 19, 2002

Á

1105

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

Chief Dwight A. Dorey (National Chief, Congress of Aboriginal Peoples)

Á

1110

Á

1115

Á

1120

Á

1125

The Chair

Mr. Elley

Chief Dwight Dorey

Á

1130

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

The Chair

Mr. Martin

Chief Dwight Dorey

Mr. Pat Martin

Chief Dwight Dorey

Ms. Wendy Cornet (Coordinator, Governance Initiative, Congress of Aboriginal Peoples)

Á

1135

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Marceau

Chief Dwight Dorey

Mr. Marceau

Chief Dwight Dorey

The Chair

Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, PC/DR)

Á

1140

Ms. Wendy Cornet

Miss Deborah Grey

Chief Dwight Dorey

Miss Grey

Chief Dwight Dorey

Miss Deborah Grey

Chief Dwight Dorey

The Chair

Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.)

Á

1145

Chief Dwight Dorey

Mr. Larry Bagnell

Chief Dwight Dorey

Mr. Larry Bagnell

Chief Dwight Dorey

Mr. Bagnell

Chief Dwight Dorey

The Chair

Mr. Vellacott

Á

1150

Chief Dwight Dorey

The Chair

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

Á

1155

Chief Dwight Dorey

Mr. Godfrey

Chief Dwight Dorey

The Chair

Mr. Marceau

Voices

An hon. member

Mr. Marceau

Chief Dwight Dorey

Ms. Wendy Cornet

Â

1200

The Chair

Mr. St-Julien

Chief Dwight Dorey

Â

1205

The Chair

Miss Deborah Grey

Chief Dwight Dorey

Miss Deborah Grey

Chief Dwight Dorey

Miss Deborah Grey

Chief Dwight Dorey

Miss Deborah Grey

Chief Dwight Dorey

Miss Grey

Chief Dwight Dorey

Miss Grey

Chief Dwight Dorey

Â

1210

The Chair

Chief Dwight Dorey

The Chair

Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.)

Chief Dwight Dorey

Mr. John Finlay

Chief Dwight Dorey

Mr. Finlay

Chief Dwight Dorey

Â

1215

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Chief Dwight Dorey

The Chair

Mr. Larry Bagnell

Chief Dwight Dorey

Â

1220

The Chair

Mr. Marceau

Chief Dwight Dorey

Ms. Wendy Cornet

The Chair

Mr. John Godfrey

Chief Dwight Dorey

Mr. John Godfrey

Chief Dwight Dorey

The Chair

Miss Deborah Grey

Chief Dwight Dorey

Â

1225

The Chair

Mr. John Finlay

Chief Dwight Dorey

The Chair

Mr. John Finlay

The Chair

Chief Dwight Dorey

The Chair

Â

1230

Chief Dwight Dorey

The Chair

Â

1235

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources

---

NUMBER 046

l

1st SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, March 19, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1105)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.)): I'll call the meeting to order. Thank you, everyone.

    Pursuant to Standing Order 108, we are continuing our overview of the Indian Act, in anticipation of legislation that will be referred to us by the he House of Commons, hopefully soon. In so preparing, we have asked a number of individuals, leaders who we consider to be experts, to educate us and to share with us the history of the Indian Act.

    Today, we are honoured to have with us the national chief of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, Chief Dwight Dorey. With Chief Dorey is the coordinator for the governance initiative, Ms. Wendy Cornet.

    We thank you very much for accepting our invitation. We appreciate having you with us, and we look forward to your presentation. We ask you to make a presentation of 10 to 20 minutes, and then we will proceed to a question-and-answer period, which will consist of rounds of 4 minutes for the question and the answer. If we ask a 4-minute question and it's important to you to respond, you'll have to sneak it into your next answer. That's the trick. That's how you do it here. I always say that if we ask you the time, you tell us what the temperature is. Get what you want into your answers, because you're here to help us. And you will have an opportunity for closing remarks.

    We invite you to go ahead and make your presentation.

    Chief Dwight A. Dorey (National Chief, Congress of Aboriginal Peoples): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, vice-chairs, and member of the standing committee. I welcome this opportunity to appear before you today on the first nations governance initiative and the Indian Act.

    I would also like to introduce to you another individual who is with me today, and that's my vice-chief, Jason Knockwood. Unfortunately, Professor Victor Valentine was unable to be with me today. However, I have an illustrious group of support staff with me here, but there are just too many of them to introduce and I don't want to use up my time.

    I have had copies of our information kits distributed to you all. They contain useful background materials for your review, and they will enlighten you on the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples: our genesis; milestones in our 30-year history; various programs and projects in which we are involved; and also data on off-reserve aboriginal peoples.

    Before I get into the details, I'd like you to know that I do appreciate the value of time, so I will try to heed the words of a great Inuit leader, Zebedee Nungak, who described Inuit prayers as being short, business-like, and to the point. I've prepared my presentation accordingly.

    I hope you will appreciate the aboriginal reality in Canada today, a fact that too few Canadians know and too many legislators in the past have ignored. Namely, the largest number of aboriginal people by far do not live on Indian Act reserves, nor do we benefit from the provisions of the Indian Act.

    I will also discuss the first nations governance initiative, the findings from the consultation process in which our people have been involved, and what we have recommended. I will then conclude by offering some thoughts on governance for aboriginal peoples living away from Indian Act reserves.

    So let me begin by citing a few facts. The Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, or CAP, formerly the Native Council of Canada, is one of the oldest national aboriginal organizations, having been founded as the Native Council of Canada in 1971. In fact, we celebrated our thirtieth anniversary just last October.

    The 1996 census reported that there are more than 1.1 million people of aboriginal ancestry living in Canada, a number that will have increased by the time the aboriginal data for the 2001 census are released. Of that number, Statistics Canada reports that close to 80% of all aboriginal peoples do not live on Indian Act reserves or first nations, as they are incorrectly labelled. In fact, even when it comes to registered or status Indians, more than half do not live on Indian Act reserves, given that mobility to urban centres is on the rise, a trend in keeping with the changing demographics of the Canadian population as revealed in the latest census data.

    In your kits, you will find a simple-to-read but accurate information sheet outlining the aboriginal reality in Canada today. You will see how CAP represents, in reality, the interests of more than 800,000 off-reserve aboriginal people living in urban, rural, and remote areas throughout Canada. These are not data we made up or pulled out of our hat. This information is provided by Statistics Canada.

    When this organization was founded as the Native Council of Canada back in 1971, our natural, consistent constituency included Métis and non-status Indian people throughout Canada. With the coming into force of Bill C-31 in the mid-1980s, many thousands of our people regained or were first granted their status. Indeed, today, many of CAP's constituent member associations, chiefs, and presidents are registered Indians living off reserve. As a Mi'kmaw man and national chief of the Congress of Aboriginal peoples, I am a 16-year-old Indian thanks to Bill C-31. You should see some of the looks that I get from people when I tell them that. I also suggest that Dick Clark can eat his heart out.

Á  (1110)  

    The net effect of all this is that the people who look to the congress and its provincial and territorial member associations for support and for the delivery of services now include Métis living outside the newly defined “Prairie homelands”, many remaining non-status Indians, as well as registered and treaty Indians living away from Indian Act reserves—by far the largest number of aboriginal peoples in Canada.

    Despite being significantly under-resourced in comparison with other aboriginal organizations, the congress and its predecessor have always maintained policies on program delivery that are status- and residency-blind. Our track record proves that we have always served the interests of aboriginal people regardless of their status or where they live. Just two of many past examples of this include the Rural and Native Housing Program, which was hugely successful in providing housing and residential rehabilitation to many thousands of aboriginal people; and the employment and small business-generating Urban Aboriginal Job Fund. Those are both initiatives that originated with CAP or the Native Council of Canada.

    While on the subject of providing you with observable facts, it is important to add here that the Native Council of Canada's president negotiated directly with Jean Chrétien, then Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, to ensure that the word “Métis” was included with “Indian” and “Inuit” in section 35 of the Constitution of Canada in 1982.

    More recently, we have developed and are in the process of implementing a national aboriginal workplace strategy, in partnership with government, organized labour, and the private sector. It holds great promise for ensuring strong and lasting participation by aboriginal people in the Canadian economy. Its focus is to ensure that aboriginal people are well prepared to compete at all levels within the workplace, from entry-level to senior management positions, and that the workplace is well prepared to accommodate the skills and talents of educated, trained, and motivated aboriginal people. It's a win-win situation for all partners, and a program of great promise for current and future generations of aboriginal people.

    And then there is CAP's national diabetes initiative, again in a partnering program with government, aboriginal, and private-sector involvement. It focuses on the prevention and maintenance of this pandemic disease within the aboriginal community.

    Once again, both initiatives require no tests of status or residency. That, according to our philosophy, is as it should be.

    My point is that in the face of a great deal of adversity—financial, legal, and social—the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples and its constituent member associations throughout the country are continuing to serve the interests of all off-reserve aboriginal people as best we can.

    At the same time, it is a reality that any of us should not want to persist for another 125 years. The aboriginal reality in Canada cannot be ignored or swept aside if we are truly serious about ensuring that all aboriginal citizens enjoy full and equal participation within the fabric of this nation. As off-reserve aboriginal people constituting the largest number of these by a ratio of 3:1, we want partnerships that are fair, effective, and enduring.

    For our part, we believe having that as our goal places a responsibility on us, as aboriginal people, to get involved in these issues that directly affect us and a significant portion of the people whose interests we are elected to serve. It is simple. If we want our people to benefit, then we, as leaders, must participate and contribute. We cannot stand on the sidelines and complain when we are given the opportunity to be included. That is why we accepted the Hon. Robert Nault's invitation last year to participate in the consultation process on the first nations governance initiative and to participate as well in the Joint Ministerial Advisory Committee.

Á  (1115)  

    As I have pointed out, a sizeable portion of CAP's people are off reserve, registered Indians who mainly see themselves as being on the outside looking in. It would be a disservice to them if we were to turn our backs on a process that directly affects their lives. That is why we will continue to be involved in this process to the end, and in other processes dealing not only with reforms to the Indian Act, but with any other issues affecting off-reserve aboriginal people.

    I have to say that the timeframe for consultation on the governance initiative could have been longer, but I am nevertheless satisfied that the participation in the process by our people was good. More than 1775 people participated in 76 consultation sessions held by the congress at the regional and community levels across the country. There is not enough time here to go into detailed results of those consultations, but you do have copies of our final report in your information kits, which I hope you will take the time to review. However, let me give you some of the highlights from those consultations.

    Off-reserve aboriginal people want the Indian Act replaced with an “Aboriginal Peoples Act” that accommodates their interests as soon as possible. Such an act, along the lines of the recommendation by the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples in 1996, could provide the framework for recognizing aboriginal nations and implementing the inherent right of self-government.

    Off-reserve Indians, we heard, want the archaic Indian Act concepts of Indian status and band membership fundamentally reformed. Our people want policies respecting new band membership reviewed. They expressed the belief that Canada should return to the first principle upon which the country was built—namely, that relationships with aboriginal peoples should be conducted on a nation-to-nation basis, with a renewed treaty negotiation process in place.

    Our people stated that the federal government must stop using the Indian Act definition of “Indian” to determine who is aboriginal and who qualifies for aboriginal rights. Aboriginal peoples and nations, like the Mi'kmaq, Cree, Ojibwa, Haida, etc., and not just Indian Act bands, should be the focus of self-government and governance reforms. These are the collective tribal groups that signed our treaties, and they are the historical bases for self-government entitlements.

    While these efforts are underway, our people believe some basic reforms to the Indian Act can be undertaken quickly to ensure, at the minimum, that democratic elections to band councils must include all band members, not just those living on Indian Act reserves; and that financial accountability by band councils to all band members is ensured. As well, our people also said that federal departments should be restructured to reflect today's aboriginal reality, the one in which the vast majority of aboriginal people live away from Indian Act reserves.

    Yet another positive step forward would be the immediate creation of an aboriginal peoples secretariat within the Privy Council Office in order to coordinate joint policy development between Canada and the aboriginal people off reserve. I remind committee members that the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples already has a political accord with the federal government. It was signed by the Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-status Indians and the Minister of Indian Affairs, and could provide the framework for developing such a secretariat. You will find a copy of the accord in your information kits.

    So these are some of the recommendations that off-reserve aboriginal people have made on the governance initiative. We believe they are important, valid, realistic, and achievable between people of goodwill and common purpose. We also believe they reflect a true partnership between aboriginal and non-aboriginal peoples living in Canada, whose bounties we can share in and whose challenges we can gather together to overcome.

    Everyone in this room, and I suspect the minister himself, believes the Indian Act's time has come. It is archaic. It is unfair and paternalistic. The negative adjectives can go on and on. It must go.

Á  (1120)  

    I'm also sure everyone in this room, and the minister, too, knows that the first nations governance initiative is but a tiny step compared to what we all know must be done. It is a tentative, and some might even say timid first step, but at least it is a step toward what we all hope will be the inevitable. The question that remains, then, is what we do in the meantime.

    What do we do as aboriginal people, as governments, as organizations, and as institutions, to advance the aboriginal agenda, to give aboriginal people a greater voice and a greater sense of participation and belonging in this country? The Congress of Aboriginal Peoples believes the dialogue on the great issues must continue, and we will continue to be part of that dialogue. But we also believe we cannot just sit on our hands and await the mills of the constitutional and legislative gods to grind slowly along their paths. Things can and must get underway.

    We can strive for a greater share of voice, and therefore have control over our lives in the communities we live in and over the institutions that guide them. We can sit on school boards, where decisions are being made that affect our children and their futures. We can sit on police boards, where decisions are being made that affect our people. We can be active, participating members of hospital and health boards, whose deliberations are critical to the well-being of our people. We can get elected to councils, where vital issues affecting our people are debated, although this is often a far greater challenge than an appointment is.

    In short, as aboriginal communities of interest, we can be part of decision-making institutions and processes in which our voices are heard, our concerns are taken into consideration, and our well-being can be accommodated within a framework in which we coexist and share the benefits along with the larger society in which we live.

    This approach is also in line with our CAP recommendations that recognize that there may be many different models for governance in aboriginal communities. The added benefit is that there is no assimilation here. We don't melt into the so-called dominant society and lose our identity. We can do all this without compromising aboriginal imperatives: our cultures, our languages, our belief systems, our spirituality, our artistic expressions—many of the things that set us apart as aboriginal peoples.

    I hold strongly to the notion that, as aboriginal people, we can maintain our values, cultures, and beliefs along with our aboriginal rights in urban settings or any off-reserve setting, while developing working relationships with and having a strong voice in the larger institutions with our society. That is precisely why we are here, and why we are so deeply involved in the governance initiative, the Joint Ministerial Advisory Committee, the Federal-Provincial/Territorial-Aboriginal Forum, the Reference Group of Ministers on Aboriginal Policy, and meetings with premiers, mayors, labour leaders, and corporate CEOs.

    None of us should be under any illusion that these things are answers in and of themselves. I certainly am not. But they are small and, I believe, important steps that send out the right signals, both to our own people and to the larger society, that we are growing in numbers and importance and that we want a say in what happens to us.

    It is my firm belief that we have to keep moving forward, even if it is inch by inch. If we don't, we will drift backward foot by foot—although to be politically correct, I guess that would be metre by metre. I pledge that the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples will continue along that path under my leadership. On occasion, we will undoubtedly glance back, but our primary focus and drive will be forward and forthright. We want to participate, contribute, and benefit.

    Thank you very much. Wela’lin.

Á  (1125)  

    The Chair: Chief Dorey, thank you very much. This is your first appearance before the committee since your election as national chief. Your electorate was very wise in their choice. Not knowing who the candidates were, I must say you represent your people very well.

    You have taken the time and have made the effort to prepare very well. You have provided us with written documents and with this kit of information, and we thank you very much for that.

    We will now go to a first round of 4 minutes for both questions and answers, beginning with Mr. Elley.

    Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo--Cowichan, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to extend our appreciation to Chief Dorey for coming in and for sharing with us this morning.

    In the national debate we have here, we often hear from perhaps one organization of native peoples across Canada. We often don't know or even realize that there are very many organizations like yours that are national in scope and really represent the large group of aboriginal people in our country. I commend you for your presentation this morning, and I hope you will continue to do this kind of thing across the country in order to make Canadians aware of all sides of the issue. I'm very glad you're here today.

    We're particularly interested in looking forward, of course. I think you've rightly hit the nail on the head when you say, yes, we could get mired in the past. There's a lot of past, a lot of history out there. Not much of it is that great, but we can't stay in the past, we have to move on to the future. What we're engaged in doing at this table is indeed not only changing something about the present, but looking forward to change in the future for all of us in this country, and I would join my hand with yours to do that as we move forward in this process.

    We're thinking particularly about the government initiative that they've announced to bring some changes to the Indian Act. I'd be very interested to know what your view would be on why the government perhaps has chosen these two issues to lead with on this. Do you have any thoughts on why they've chosen the questions of electoral and financial accountability, and would they have been your first choice if you had been the government? And how else do we need to change this act? What are the things we should do beyond that step in order to continue this and get rid of this archaic and very paternalistic act that we have?

    Chief Dwight Dorey: Thank you, Mr. Elley.

    The focus or primary issue as undertaken by the government, in my view, is fundamentally the result of the Supreme Court decision in Corbiere and of the action that was taken. It was an issue of the off-reserve band members who were, for the most part in this country, denied their rights of franchise and having a say in the election of chief and council on their reserve. To me, that was the fundamental objective of the government in undertaking this initiative.

    As I've outlined in my presentation, in an ideal world, we would have preferred that the federal government take a bigger step in this approach, again along the lines of the recommendations of the royal commission. On the one hand, where there is a move within this process to take a step forward on this issue of exclusion and to make the process or system more inclusive—i.e., that denial of off-reserve Indians' right to vote—we would have preferred a bigger step along the lines of the realignment or restructuring of the Department of Indian Affairs into a department of aboriginal affairs, again as the Royal Commission had outlined.

Á  (1130)  

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Martin will be receiving a call. He must speak in the House, so

[Translation]

I would like to thank Mr. Marceau for accepting to let Mr. Martin go first.

[English]

    Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I thank the member from the Bloc for giving me his place in the speaking order, as I do have to dash off to the House very soon.

    Thank you for being here and for your interesting brief, Chief Dorey. I'll cut right to the chase. You are the legitimate group within Canada that chose to cooperate with the consultation process. The Assembly of First Nations looked at the subject matter of the first governance initiative consultations and said very dramatically—in fact, it was at the Halifax conference, at which I was in attendance—that they would boycott.

    The allegation now is that the only groups that have cooperated and have taken part in the consultations have either been bribed into doing so or have been threatened with some kind of financial punishment if they refuse. We've had groups come to this committee telling us that they believe their funding was cut off because they wouldn't dance with the minister. So I ask you this: For your 76 consultations, how much money did Bob Nault pay you to conduct those 76 consultations?

    I'll tell you why I ask that. I actually asked for that information from the government through a “production of papers” request: Given the rumours that we've heard, how much have you spent to conduct these consultations? The answer we got back from the government was that no such papers exist, so they couldn't provide us with the information on how much they spent on the consultations. That's why I'm asking you how much your organization got for conducting the 76 consultations that you undertook.

    The Chair: Before you begin your response, I will clear up that Bob Nault doesn't give any money. The money belongs to the taxpayers.

    Mr. Pat Martin: I'm sorry. I agree.

    Chief Dwight Dorey: Thank you.

    The Congress of Aboriginal Peoples received an amount from the federal government that was close to but just under $1 million. Because of the historic representation of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples in the past in representing non-status Indians who gained or regained status under Bill C-31 and for the most part were residing off reserve, we basically took the position that this legislation that is proposed is going to impact directly upon us. In my view, it was therefore critical that our people be involved.

    Mr. Pat Martin: I understand why you took part. Believe me, I'm not trying to say you shouldn't have taken part or anything else. I understand fully what your motivation was.

    You clearly undertook a lot of consultations, but it still adds up to about $15,000 per meeting. We've heard of some communities that have been offered as much as $50,000 or $60,000 to conduct one consultation hearing.

    Did your costs vary? Obviously, the more rural and remote the public hearings would have been, the more they would have cost. It would cost more to hold a meeting in La Ronge, for instance, than it would to hold one someplace outside of Winnipeg, I suppose.

    With that, I'm afraid I'm going to have to dash out of here.

    Chief Dwight Dorey: If I might, I would ask Wendy to respond to that, because she basically managed the program.

    Ms. Wendy Cornet (Coordinator, Governance Initiative, Congress of Aboriginal Peoples): I'll address the money that has been received by the national office of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. It was for what's described as phase 1 of the consultations. That involved not only consultation activities, but policy development work. It included, for example, our participation in the Joint Ministerial Advisory Committee; and the hiring of consultants, advisors, and those kinds of people, to analyse government documents and do our own policy development internally. So the money is not allocated simply for the holding of meetings, it goes to many other things as well.

Á  (1135)  

    Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I apologize for having to leave.

[Translation]

    The Chair: Mr. Marceau.

    Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg--Jacques-Cartier, BQ): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Dorey and Ms. Cornet, thank you for being here today. We have little time, so I will be quick.

    In your presentation, you mentioned that you consulted 1,775 people. Elsewhere in your document you state that there are 1.1 million people of aboriginal ancestry living in Canada, and about 800,000 of them live off reserve. In your opinion, is 0.16 percent or even 0.22 percent, if we take just those who are living on reserves, a sufficient sample to assess what aboriginal peoples want regarding governance?

[English]

    Chief Dwight Dorey: As I indicated in my presentation, I would have much preferred a longer timeframe for consultations, for the basic purposes of having broader hearings and more people involved. Having said that, we believe completely in the results of our efforts. From those 1,700-plus people we consulted, we got a good indication as to what the sentiments are and what the views of our people are out in our communities.

    I also have to add that in addition to hearing from those people at the community level individually, we have had many discussions at the national council of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples on these kinds of issues as well. I fully appreciate the time spent and the results of the time spent in those consultations, as short as that time was. We have a good reflection of what the broader opinions are out there.

[Translation]

    Mr. Richard Marceau: Your organization has quite significant pan-Canadian recognition. The other organization, which is just as important an organization regarding aboriginal affairs, is of course the Assembly of First Nations. You know that the Assembly of First Nations has decided to boycott, and not participate in the consultation process. That is its decision. Yours is different, and I will not comment on this.

    My question is, to what extent does the Assembly of First Nations' boycott or non-participation or refusal to participate invalidate the process leading to greater governance by aboriginal peoples overall? In your opinion, to what extent does the AFN boycott invalidate the process?

[English]

    Chief Dwight Dorey: Well, I'm not here to speak for the Assembly of First Nations, and I'm not about to try to say what the impact would be on them, but I want to go back to the basic fundamental issue of what brought this about. It was the Supreme Court decision on Corbiere, which was basically an issue of the denial of the right of people off reserve to participate in and vote on band affairs. I believe our participation in this process is probably the most significant means of getting the views of those people into this process, because they are the people we represent.

    Now, there is obviously a side that you or the government may feel is missing, and that side is the views of the people on reserve in terms of what they think about this new, broader, more open participation, but I'm not here to address that.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Miss Grey.

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

    Pat said he tried to get quite a bit of information about how much it cost. You obviously knew what it was, so it sounds like another missing report.

    Wendy, you talked about phase 1 consisting of meetings, advisory groups, and policy development, which are all good. Were there any parameters or guidelines? A million bucks is a chunk of change, so under what guise or envelope, if you will...? Did you folks just determine how to spend that money, or were there guidelines attached to it?

Á  (1140)  

    Ms. Wendy Cornet: There was a contribution agreement signed, as usual. There was a requirement, for example, that each consultation meeting include an invitation to the department to attend. There were requirements to provide a summary report within 24 hours, and a comprehensive report within 7 days, I believe. There were financial reporting requirements. In terms of its participation, the CAP national office was required to submit a report wrapping up all of the consultations done within the CAP organizations, which we have done—and it has been submitted and is in your kit. Following the end of the consultation period in terms of the public consultation with the communities, the contribution agreement also included continuing on with the policy development, which we have done since the fall.

    Miss Deborah Grey: Good. Thank you.

    Because I'm ignorant on this, I'm just wondering if aboriginal people across the country join CAP. Is there a membership fee, or are they a member of the group just by definition?

    Chief Dwight Dorey: The Congress of Aboriginal Peoples is made up of provincial and territorial organizations that , in turn, have individual memberships. As organizations representing off-reserve aboriginal people, though, the reality is that we provide services to off-reserve aboriginal people, and that's not contingent upon membership. We speak for and represent all off-reserve aboriginal people.

    Miss Deborah Grey: So you're the umbrella organization under which all these other agencies—

    Chief Dwight Dorey: That's correct, yes.

    Miss Deborah Grey: Thank you. I wasn't aware of that.

    You talked about self-government, you talked about there being no assimilation, and you talked about things being done nation-to-nation. With so many people living off reserve, I'm confused about what form that would take. With reserves, you see a physical, geographical setting. With 800,000 people right across the country, how do you envision the logistics of that, I suppose, in terms of self-government?

    Chief Dwight Dorey: Your question is a good one, and it's an issue that we have been wrestling with internally for some time.

    When the whole process or initiative of the recognition of the inherent right to self-government came about, there was an initial sentiment or view within our constituency, amongst our people, that we had to immediately get out there and create this self-governing entity. But the difficulty has always been answering that very question, especially in light of the fact that our constituents don't have a land base like that of our brothers and sisters on reserves. It's a little easier for them to define.

    As my presentation outlines, the approach we're taking now is more on the practical application of the benefits of self-government—that is, starting to develop the institutions of self-government, starting to provide the services to those people who are entitled to those services, and on a much fairer and more equitable basis than in the past. That's the approach we're intent on moving on now, through a partnership arrangement and partnership approach. As we move along, I would anticipate that, at some time, we're going to see this form taking greater shape in terms of what the overall entity of self-government will be for our off-reserve people.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Bagnell.

    Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): Thank you for coming. It's wonderful to have you here. With all the preparation you've done, I think those of us at the table and in the room recognize that there are problems, and we're all trying to work positively toward whatever will help to solve them. I think you've done a wonderful job in that spirit, and that you've brought us lots of information.

    I understand the complexities of off-reserve life, because I was formerly the president of Skookum Jim Friendship Centre, in Whitehorse. We tried to serve a number of those people, so I understand a bit of what you're dealing with.

    Just to put us in the realm again, I want to go back to the numbers. These are just broad numbers to help my thinking on the numbers of people. Could you again go over again the rough numbers of status Indians, non-status Indians, Métis, and Inuit in Canada, and over the number who would be served by the AFN and those who would fall under the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples? They don't have to be exact numbers. Just give us an idea.

Á  (1145)  

    Chief Dwight Dorey: The aboriginal population in total is approximately 1.1 million. Of those, 79% are off reserve. There are approximately 800,000 who are of Indian ancestry, 220,700 Métis, and approximately 50,000 Inuit.

    All that information is also in the Statistics Canada tables that are in the packages that you have.

    Mr. Larry Bagnell: Of the 800,000 status Indians, roughly what percentage are off reserve?

    Chief Dwight Dorey: Fifty-one percent.

    Mr. Larry Bagnell: Is it fair to say that, over Canada's history, you feel those first nations people who have chosen to go off reserve have not had the same access to services or attention as those who have stayed on reserves?

    Chief Dwight Dorey: I would agree totally with that. That has been one of the main issues of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples for the past 30 years.

    Mr. Larry Bagnell: I guess the issue of all of these 1.1 million people.... I think all of them agree with the benefits of self-government. That's a way to deal with a lot of these things, but as my colleague Miss Grey brought up, the difficulty is the model of self-government that you exercise when you're scattered all over. Especially in a big city, it must be very difficult to find mechanisms to exercise those self-government models when you could be spread over a number of even adjacent jurisdictions. It must be a very big challenge for you.

    Chief Dwight Dorey: Yes, it certainly is, but I firmly hold to the view that it is not an insurmountable challenge. I do believe that if the will is there, we will and can succeed in this initiative.

    Just for comparison, we've had occasion to look at other governing bodies and so on. We can look at how the military, for example, has some governance within itself. It has its own court system and that sort of thing, yet it's all over the place. You can look at the Vatican, for example. It's a very small country and its people are scattered all over the world, but it's a nation that governs itself. So there are ways these things can be achieved if the will is there. I go back to that point.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Vellacott.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon--Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance): Thanks for being here today, Chief Dorey.

    I ask this question because of conversations I've had with aboriginal friends and acquaintances. It gets to the very heart of some of this in terms of self-government, and particularly the concept that you use here again, “nation-to-nation basis”. My aboriginal acquaintances and friends indicate to me that sometimes when it's used in the greater Canadian society, “nation-to-nation” is a bit of a stumbling block for some because they don't necessarily mean the “European concept” of nation or nationhood, if you will. So that would be my question to you. The European concept seems to be that of having a military, signing international treaties, and various things like that.

    Sometimes if we speak in terms of sovereign nations, the difficult thing is that there are certain international and legal implications that go with that concept. I guess I need to hear from a variety of people in the aboriginal community, because some have indicated to me that different ones have a bit of a mental block there, if you will, because what is meant by “nation-to-nation” is different than what other people out there in non-aboriginal society mean.

    So can you tell me what you mean by “nation-to-nation”? Is it having a military, is it signing international treaties, or is it all of what is meant by that from a European kind of mindset?

Á  (1150)  

    Chief Dwight Dorey: First of all, my view on that question is that you'll get probably just about as many different views from the aboriginal side as you would from the non-aboriginal side. Personally, from my position, I don't believe the people I represent are viewing self-government as a totally, absolutely sovereign kind of government that would indicate or suggest that with it comes military power, our own currency, and those sorts of things. I don't believe that's what we're looking for or talking about.

    I view myself first as a Mi'kmaw person, a member of the Mi'kmaw First Nation, but I am also a Canadian. I don't believe that we in general—and when I say “we in general”, I mean the majority of aboriginal people in this country—are expecting all non-aboriginal peoples to just pack up and leave. I think that would be the only way you could really expect or see any hope of so-called absolute, sovereign self-government powers under which you would have a military, your own currency, and those sorts of things.

    There's something in between that has to work, and I think people are looking for something in between those two diabolical ends of the spectrum. I believe there is something there.

    But what's really important for the people I represent—and this is the reason I'm here—is that, up to this stage of this whole process of moving toward self-government for aboriginal people, the primary and basic focus has been on those reserve communities created 126 years ago by the Indian Act. The reality is that the majority of our people live outside of those geographical boundaries, and we believe they are entitled to the same principle of recognition and the same degree of fair and equitable treatment. That's what we're trying to do here. We're suggesting that the solution is not a simple one, because we have this larger percentage of aboriginal people who have to be taken into account.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Vellacott.

    We are still in a four-minute round for the next round.

    Mr. Godfrey.

    Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): I want to welcome Chief Dorey and remind him, perhaps, that we have a certain common Nova Scotian background. I particularly welcome him on that basis.

    As a relative newcomer to this file, I guess what I'm trying to do is understand the various groups that represent aboriginal people in Canada, and the relationships they have with each other. There's the Assembly of First Nations, there's your group, and there is the Métis National Council, to take three.

    Without knowing much about this, it would seem to me that there are some overlaps here. That is to say, if I were to have asked Grand Chief Matthew Coon Come how many people he represents, I would understand him to say that he notionally represents the 800,000 who are status. If I were to ask the Métis National Council—I suspect they wouldn't accept the figure of 250,000, by the way, but that's another issue—they would also notionally represent some of the Métis people who are obviously, by definition, off reserve. And then there's you, and you represent 800,000 people.

    I want to know how you all get along with each other. Do you do a saw-off? Which of the, say, 400,000 status Indians who are off reserve do you truly represent, versus those represented by the Assembly of First Nations? And how do you do that with the Métis? First of all, do you recognize the legitimacy of the other organizations? Secondly, do they recognize your legitimacy? Thirdly, how do you sort it all out between yourselves?

Á  (1155)  

    Chief Dwight Dorey: As a fellow Nova Scotian, you're really being hard on me, because you've asked a question that would really require a 40-minute answer but you want me to give it to you in 4 minutes.

    Mr. John Godfrey: It's actually probably closer to two minutes.

    Chief Dwight Dorey: Basically, the unfortunate reality is that we don't always agree, we don't always get along, and we don't always work together. Having said that, there are times and occasions when we do. Fundamentally, the situation is that this piece of legislation that we keep talking about has driven a wedge between us for 126 years. That wedge has been entrenched generation after generation. Families are split right down the middle because of it. That's the real, fundamental reason why we often can't get together and agree on things.

    Secondly, I was involved in constitutional meetings way back when, when we were into the nuts and bolts of trying to get real self-government implemented in the Constitution. I've always said this was one of the biggest problems people had in terms of trying to comprehend or understand things. The question always thrown to us was focused on why we couldn't get together. Well, a lot of our people historically were at war with each other, they were enemies. So the second question to be asked is why it is that other Canadians can't get together. Why are there so many different parties and different organizations representing people? Why can't you all come together?

    The real situation here is that we have this problem of this legislation, and that's why I say it has to go. We can make some minor adjustments to accommodate issues that were brought before the Supreme Court, but the overall, end objective that we should be looking at is getting rid of this piece of legislation. It has been there too long and it's still discriminatory. In its place, we have to get something that is fair and equitable.

    As for overlap of the organizations, sir, you and I, as well as members of provincial bodies.... You have a municipal government that represents you, you have a provincial government that represents you, and you have a federal government that represents you. If Canadians in general can understand that and can be able to ensure that there are no overlaps, I would ask why it can't be done for aboriginal people. I believe it can be, and that's what we have to look at.

    The Chair: Thank you, you did extremely well in two minutes. And yes, there are municipal, provincial, and federal governments, and God knows we don't always get along.

    Monsieur Marceau.

    Mr. Richard Marceau: I wish sometimes that we could get rid of one of those.

    Voices: Oh, oh!

    An hon. member: On a point of order, Mr. Chair—

[Translation]

    Mr. Richard Marceau: Mr. Dorey, in your presentation to us, on page 5, you state, and I quote: “Let me give you some highlights from our consultations.”, and the second point is:

Such an Act, along the lines of the recommendation by the Royal Commission of Aboriginal Peoples in 1996 could provide the framework for recognizing Aboriginal nations and implementing the inherent right to self government.

    That is in your presentation today. Yet, in your document which states the questions and answers your organization has regarding governance, you state:

...it is clear the that the FNGI,

that is, the governance issue,

does not deal with certain issues that are usually part of the political autonomy discussions, and excludes a large part of the political autonomy program. By using the word “governance” the federal government is trying to limit the scope of its legislative reform.

    End of quote.

    My question is, do you believe that the governance initiative, as structured by the federal government, follows the recommendations of the Erasmus-Dussault Commission, or is it completely different, on a parallel track, and which in some way sets aside the priority established by the Erasmus-Dussault recommendations, to shift attention elsewhere?

[English]

    Chief Dwight Dorey: I'd like to ask Wendy to respond to that.

    Ms. Wendy Cornet: There are two basic responses that the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples has made in its presentation. The first is a response to the first nations governance initiative itself. The second is basically CAP's presentation on where Indian Act reform ultimately should go in the ideal world.

    CAP has taken the position of participating in the first nations governance initiative in order to respond to the priorities the federal government identified. Those priorities did concern the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples in terms of ensuring that off-reserve band members could vote in Indian Act band elections. That was a key point, and one of the key motivations for participating in the initiative, as Chief Dorey indicated.

    Beyond that, however, the congress has indicated that it has a reform agenda that extends beyond simply fixing or responding to the Corbiere decision. On the one hand, it has said that if CAP is saying this is what's wrong with the Indian Act, what positively do you do? Beyond fixing things such as Indian Act band elections, what else needs to be done with the Indian Act? The response of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples is to say we should pick up on one of these key recommendations of the royal commission, get on with discussing it, and see what we can do with it.

  (1200)  

[Translation]

    The Chair: Mr. St-Julien.

    Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi--Baie-James--Nunavik, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. Dorey, National Chief, Ms. Cornet, I appreciate also seeing young aboriginal leaders with you today. Over the past years, I have been fascinated each time that I see youths following you, to see them follow those who have experience and attend meetings. I appreciate that they are here. I have noted also that the former member of the House, Mr. Littlechild, the attorney, from Alberta, is with us here in Ottawa. We appreciate this.

    You mentioned at the start of your brief, that the great leader Zebedee Nungak, who I know very well, and who comes from Kangirsuk in Nunavik, said that the Inuit prayers are brief and to the point. We appreciate the fact that you state that the Inuit are leaders among us, in our communities. Also, in my riding, we have Grand Chief Matthew Coon Come, from Mistassini. We all know each other.

    I have two questions. First, according to the young leaders, according to the aboriginal leaders in Canada, and according to the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, do you agree that we should abolish the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, here in Ottawa, and direct the resources to the reserves and off-reserves, to help aboriginal peoples in Canada?

    My second question deals with accountability. How does the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples view the financial and political responsibility of the first nations leaders towards their members? If there are structures in place to ensure that the principles of responsibility are respected, what are they?

[English]

    Chief Dwight Dorey: Thank you.

    First, on the issue of abolishing the Indian Act or the Department of Indian Affairs, I believe it is probably not a good idea to suddenly just say we're going to get rid of the act today and that's it. In its recommendation, I believe the royal commission was proposing that there be a restructuring of the Department of Indian Affairs into some new departments. But the primary focus of its recommendation was the idea that it be more inclusive, that the reality of the aboriginal population in Canada—as I've set out in my presentation—is such that we are seeing that it is the off-reserve population that is the fastest-growing part of the population.

    What we're going to realize somewhere down the road is that if the aboriginal socio-economic issues are not addressed, this country is going to be in a grave situation with respect to that larger population of aboriginal people. I believe the royal commission, in its recommendations, was looking at that and was saying we have to take a broader look at our legislation and the policies that come from that legislation in terms of how we deal with this aboriginal issue. It's not just a matter of scrapping the Indian Act and not having anything there.

    At the same time, I also believe some of our people—and I believe this would be something that is being expressed by the AFN and by our group as well—feel that somewhere down the road, we would like to see the department, or whatever it might be, gone. We would like to see some real self-government for aboriginal people in this country. You would no longer need a department such as it looks today, with its huge bureaucracy. That's where we stand on that issue.

    On financial accountability and sharing, in the 30 years of this organization, we have basically been operating under funding agreements that require or obligate us to be accountable. We have regular audits that are required. We uphold the requirements and contractual arrangements that we have, and we don't anticipate that changing. We have always been open and transparent with our financial accountability, and we envision that we will continue to be in the future.

  (1205)  

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Miss Grey.

    Miss Deborah Grey: Thank you. I have a couple of questions.

    In answer to, I think, John's question, you asked why everybody can't just get along. You said that for several years—126 years, I think you said—the Indian Act or something like it was the thing that would get you over this so that everyone could basically get along. Did I read you right?

    Chief Dwight Dorey: What I was saying was that this piece of legislation has driven a wedge between our people by determining who is entitled to be status and who isn't, and that kind of thing. It has gone on for generations.

    Miss Deborah Grey: So it has put the wedge between you. But that would let me think that before that wedge came in, everything was cool. Yet you then said these people were warring against each other, surely long before this wedge or long before this legislation came in, either because of geography, because of turf, or whatever else was there.

    I'm just seeing a bit of a discrepancy. I don't know if I'm—

    Chief Dwight Dorey: It's not so much a discrepancy as it is my point that there are a number of factors behind why we sometimes have difficulty in coming together under one voice, so to speak.

    Miss Deborah Grey: Okay, I appreciate that. I think every marriage is like that. But beyond that, I feel like I'm being led to believe that if this gets solved, everything will be a whole lot better than it was. I suspect that's true in many ways, but if historical tribal warring was going on, is this going to solve those problems this many years down the road?

    Chief Dwight Dorey: I think my presentation gets to the real heart of the problem, of the issue we're talking about. That is, I revert to the traditional tribal or more sovereign—use whatever term you want to use—inherent right of self-government for the basic nations, like the Mi'kmaq nations, the Cree, the Ojibwa, or whoever. If we can go back to looking at those kinds of entities of self-government, then I fail to see where the differences of the Mi'kmaq and the Cree would be an issue. We're talking about fundamental governance for those first nations groups on a broader, collective basis.

    The real problem that we have is viewing self-government as a starting point with Indian Act reserves, given the fact that the Indian Act reserve system already divided people within the same first nation. As an off-reserve Mi'kmaw person, I have constant battles with Mi'kmaw band chiefs.

    Miss Deborah Grey: And that's my next and last point. It's not so much whether I label you assimilated, but it's within the.... I suspect that because you left reserves, your brothers and sisters on reserve have labelled you that, but not in the happiest kind of light.

    Chief Dwight Dorey: But my point is that it's the legislation that caused that problem for the most part. I can tell you that many of our people want to see their brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, aunts and uncles, back on the reserve, but the system that is there, and the services and the benefits, do not accommodate that. I do fully understand your argument that the chiefs and the people on reserve have with—

    Miss Deborah Grey: With Bill C-31.

    Chief Dwight Dorey: —with Bill C-31 or any other process of trying to accommodate the people off reserve and opening their arms and bringing them back in. That would place a further burden onto the current problems and issues that they have on the reserve unless that's dealt with. That's all I'm saying.

    Really, the point we're trying to make is that we shouldn't have to be expected...it shouldn't be viewed as necessary for us necessarily to go back to the reserve community to enjoy our entitlements of self-government. That again is what our approach and presentation were focusing on.

    Miss Deborah Grey: Or to leave it in the first place.

    Chief Dwight Dorey: That's right, exactly.

  (1210)  

    The Chair: We're well over four minutes, but this is a very important issue if you're saying the legislation causes this. If you need a few more minutes, go ahead, unless you want to come back to it in your closing remarks.

    Chief Dwight Dorey: That's fine.

    The Chair: It's a very good question.

    Mr. Finlay.

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

    Chief and Wendy, you've been most enlightening. I have three questions for you, the first two of which are quite short. I'll try to put them all down for you.

    On page 3, you mention something that I am not aware of. Near the bottom of the page, you say

that the people who look to the Congress and its constituent provincial and territorial member associations for support and the delivery of services now include Metis living outside the newly defined “Prairie homelands,” many remaining non-status Indians....

That “Prairie homelands” in quotations is a term I don't understand. You might enlighten me.

    Chief Dwight Dorey: What that is referring to is a definition for Métis people in Canada that has been proposed and aggressively advocated by the Métis National Council as being the only true definition of the Métis people in this country, and we have a strong disagreement with that. There are many hundreds and thousands of Métis people who live outside the so-called prairie homelands, but who are, without any question in our mind, Métis. We view the definition of “Métis” as being a more pan-Canadian definition, not one that is limited to that prairie homeland.

    Mr. John Finlay: That's another little problem when it comes to getting together.

    On page 4, you talk about the cooperative processes that you've undertaken with DIAND, I take it, including a national aboriginal workplace strategy and the Aboriginal Diabetes Initiative. That initiative has to do with Health Canada obviously, and the workplace strategy probably has to do with Industry or with Human Resources Development. You say you're in partnership with governments, organized neighbour, and the private sector.

    In dealing with those initiatives successfully, do you think you've learned some lessons that you could import or transport to first nations? I think you're hitting a key here. We've studied the economic development, and we think improving this whole situation has a lot to do with jobs, meaningful work, and so on for first nations people.

    Chief Dwight Dorey: Well, sir, I've been in the politics of this for going on 24 years now, and I'm really beginning to believe I'm starting to learn a little bit. But it's been a tough battle.

    The real focus here, the issue that we're getting to with our national aboriginal workplace strategy, is to really get to the basic issues. We have barriers in the workforce that are keeping our people out—

    Mr. John Finlay: Artificially.

    Chief Dwight Dorey: That's right, and you can go back to look at programs like affirmative action that have been going on for a number of years, but they haven't solved the problem.

    What our approach is under this workforce strategy...and I might add that it was something originally initiated by the Saskatchewan government, and it has been running there for about five years. I took that to the Federal-Provincial/Territorial-Aboriginal Forum—what we call the FPTA. In taking it there, the my approach was to suggest to the federal government, all provincial governments, and all other aboriginal leaders that if we really want to try to broaden and expand it across the country, this is something that I believe would work.

    The basic concept of it is to get the workplace ready for aboriginal people by removing the barriers. Do an audit on hiring policies and practices, and where you find there are barriers preventing aboriginal people from obtaining jobs—and when I say “aboriginal people”, I mean all aboriginal people, whether they're on reserve, off reserve, status, non-status, Métis, or Inuit—then you take down those barriers. At the same time when you're doing that, identify what it is that you need to do to the aboriginal person to get them ready for that workplace, whether it's re-education, job training, or whatever. But it's a two-pronged approach that has to be taken. That's basically what I'm saying there, and we have to do that in a way that is status- and residency-blind.

    As the national chief of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, I quite frankly do not care what the end result is. Whether it's going to be 60% Indians on reserve, 60% urban, 60% Métis, or whatever, we're talking about the whole, global issue. I think that's the way we have to start looking at things.

  (1215)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Chief Dorey.

    We'll now engage in an exercise of question period. We'll have time for another round. There will be one minute for the question and one minute for the answer, so you'll get to feel what it's like to be a cabinet minister in the House of Commons. When I turn on my light, the minute is up.

    Mr. Vellacott.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Chief Dorey, I appreciate your authenticity, or at least what I perceive it to be in terms of your admission that you're struggling with certain issues and so on. I think that's good. We can learn from that, so I think it's a very helpful approach.

    Just as a suggestion off the top here, I sometimes wonder about this nation-to-nation concept. Maybe we should be using a different term along the way if that's a stumbling block and is misunderstood by non-aboriginal people, if you will. The other option would be go into a lengthy explanation of what that is, what it is not, and so on. In terms of a helpful dialogue, I know some people are thinking “sovereign nation” and the whole nine yards, if you will. So that's just a thought in terms of what could be down the road as we dialogue back and forth possibly.

    The other thing I'm interested in—

    The Chair: We don't have time for two answers.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: —is what you mentioned about these services that we have municipally, provincially, and federally. We don't want them overlapping. Is that to say, then...for example, health is provincial, education is by and large provincial—

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Vellacott.

    Chief Dorey, for one minute.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I guess we'll get the response on that.

    Will it not include much, after all, when these are already covered by other—

    The Chair: This is your time, Chief.

    Chief Dwight Dorey: As I was saying earlier, I really think that if there's a will, if there's a real interest in looking at the issue of overlap, it can effectively be dealt with. For example, when I talk about the differences that we have and the problems of coming together, it does go without saying that we do work together in many ways, as I also indicated. Not much may be apparent at the national level with the national organizations, but it certainly occurs at the community level.

    At the community level, a lot of our different organizations are in fact working together. They exchange information. They tackle the same kinds of problems without any real overlap when it comes to the resources that are being provided, in order to provide various services to our people. There are measures that are already in place there, just like those the federal, municipal, and provincial governments have in order to ensure that there isn't duplication of programs and services. We can just continue along that track.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Bagnell, for one minute, please.

    Mr. Larry Bagnell: The bottom line, of course, is to improve the terrible conditions—death in childbirth, unemployment, shorter life span, etc.—experienced by first nations people. I know first nations people in general experience these terrible situations. Are there any stats that show any differences among first nations people living on reserve and off reserve, and how far away they are from the national average or from being better off?

    Chief Dwight Dorey: We have all kinds of stats that would answer your question. Just very briefly, though, I will say that all the stats we have received and acquire on any social or health problem with respect to aboriginal people show that there is no distinction or differentiation between people on reserve and off reserve. It's consistently the same right across the board. That's one of the reasons why we constantly say the responses and initiatives to deal with those matters have to be applied equally, as the problem is straight across the board and there are no distinctions between on reserve, off reserve, status, non-status, and all those things.

  (1220)  

[Translation]

    The Chair: Mr. Marceau.

    Mr. Richard Marceau: You just mentioned that you have held 75 consultations. How many were held in each region, and particularly in Quebec, did you hold any sessions? Are there any regional differences of opinion? Particularly, is there a difference of opinion between Quebec aboriginal peoples and those living in the other provinces?

[English]

    Chief Dwight Dorey: I'll get Wendy to respond to that.

    Ms. Wendy Cornet: I don't think I have with me, at my fingertips, the exact number of meetings in Quebec, but I will certainly follow up with you at a later date and get that information to you.

    Generally speaking, there was a large degree of consistency in two key messages across all the regions, which did include the Quebec organization, the Native Alliance of Quebec. The first was a concern about some immediate reform with respect to the Indian Act, such as what's in the first nations governance initiative with respect to voting rights. There is also a concern about ensuring financial accountability and access to general information about band affairs by off-reserve members. And they also support the national position with respect to engaging in a discussion with the federal government on recognition legislation, such as an “Aboriginal Peoples Act”.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Godfrey.

    Mr. John Godfrey: I understand what divides you from the Assembly of First Nations and the Métis National Council. It's the Indian Act. What I'm wondering about is what unites you. I'm wondering because both you and Matthew Coon Come, in The First Nations Plan, seem to refer independently to the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. Is that what unites these three groups? Does that bundle of recommendations do the reconciliation amongst you, so to speak, or do you still have significant differences on RCAP recommendations?

    Chief Dwight Dorey: The sad reality is that what unites us is the deplorable socio-economic conditions of all aboriginal people in this country. That's the reality.

    Mr. John Godfrey: But does RCAP help to bring you closer together?

    Chief Dwight Dorey: I believe RCAP's recommendations and the focus that RCAP put on all aboriginal people in the country certainly do go a long way toward that. It is our view, and certainly my position, that it is time we took a harder look at the royal commission's recommendations, to the extent of even looking at some of the bigger recommendations. While they may be seen to be costly to governments on the one hand, I believe the end result in the long-term will be much more costly to the Canadian public if there is no action on some of these major issues.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Miss Grey.

    Miss Deborah Grey: Thank you.

    If I were a ground-level band member on reserve or a person who has moved off reserve, I think I'd find it difficult to ask who it is out there who speaks for me. Like others, I would see Matthew Coon Come on television and I would hear about the AFN, but I wouldn't hear very much about CAP or Dwight Dorey, just given the givens of the national television coverage that we see. A big percentage of people don't even know the Prime Minister's name in this country, and we who all watch television and are consumed by this find it amazing.

    You've been involved in this for a long time, so I want to tie two things together here. If someone is living off reserve, just living somewhere in downtown Edmonton, how do they know who's speaking for them? Secondly, they get a vote on reserve with the custom election process, so could you tell me how people living off reserve are thinking and feeling about the custom election process?

    Chief Dwight Dorey: On the whole issue of being informed, I agree. It's fairly common knowledge that a lot of Canadians do not read newspapers, do not watch television, and don't listen to the radio. They don't know what's going on in the country for the most part, unfortunately. But we really believe we have to be informed ourselves. The people who are involved in these issues on a daily basis, like you, me, and the people I'm involved with, have to be informed. That's part of the consultation process that we undertake. It's not just to get information from our people in regard to what their hopes and aspirations are, it's to inform them of the way we see things unfolding and of the situations we're dealing with.

    We constantly are focusing on those kinds of problems and issues by informing people and getting information back from them. It's a constant battle, but that's why these kinds of resources and our involvement are important to our organization. We're not just educating and informing our own people, we're doing the same for the Canadian public. That has been one of my major undertakings as the newly elected leader of the congress. It has been to create a better awareness of what the real situation is in this country.

    It's unfortunate that, for whatever reason, the focus in the past has been much too narrow, and only on the reserves with bands and on those kinds of situations. That's what we're dealing with.

  (1225)  

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Finlay, for one minute.

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

    Sir, again, you have been most enlightening. I'm looking at page 6, where you say we've asked you about what you've learned so far. You say the relationships with aboriginal peoples and what we've been talking about now “should be conducted on a nation-to-nation basis, with a renewed treaty negotiation process in place.”

    On the nation-to-nation basis, you said at one point that first nations are not really first nations. I see your point, and the royal commission did say that if we're going to get together and deal nation-to-nation, the Indian nations, the aboriginal people, had to reduce their numbers. We couldn't do it with 625 separate ones, some with the population of 80, some with 5,000. Would you expand on that for just a moment and give us your thoughts there?

    Chief Dwight Dorey: I'm not sure how I can expand on it any more than to say precisely that. In my own mind, I have to ask myself a question. If I believe in any true right of self-government as a first nations person, then I have to obviously take it to the point of asking myself where the authority lies or rests. It is with the collective group, the Mi'kmaw people, the Mi'kmaw nation of people. It does not rest with 13 or 15 or 25 Indian Act bands.

    Bands or communities that were created by the Indian Act are not in themselves first nations. That's the real issue and that's the real problem. I wrote the book on that. It's in your package. When I was getting my master's degree at Carleton University, part of my thesis addressed this issue of self-government for the Mi'kmaw people. I talked about going back to the real nation. That's the only way we're going to have effective self-government in this country for my people.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    First, I'd like to recognize the presence of a colleague of ours. A former member of Parliament, Mr. Willie Littlechild, is with us today.

    Welcome home, if we can call it that. I suppose we can say “home” because, as members of Parliament, there are certain privileges that we have for life on the Hill. So I hope you're enjoying your stay.

    This exercise was something I just made up as we progressed. It's not something we'll do every time in terms of having a one-minute round, my friends, but I'd like to bring to your attention how precise you people are. Here are the times we used up in the one-minute slots: one minute, 8 seconds; one minute, 42 seconds; 51 seconds; 25 seconds; one minute, 2 seconds; 43 seconds; 53 seconds; 56 seconds; one minute, 43 seconds—bad minister; 57 seconds; and one minute, 4 seconds.

    Mr. John Finlay: But they all know I'm 72, Mr. Chair.

    The Chair: You can't keep those ministers in line, eh?

    Chief Dwight Dorey: They were all pretty good.

    The Chair: Chief Dorey, at the beginning, I thanked you and I commended you for your preparation and your presentation.

    This time, I want to take advantage of this moment to commend and thank my colleagues for the excellent questions that were asked. The work that was done here today is valuable work. It shows how serious this committee is about this anticipated legislation. Some people fear the tabling of this legislation. I look forward to it, because I believe this committee will do a serious evaluation for the House and will return the bill while keeping in mind that life for the people affected by this legislation must be better afterwards. Otherwise, we will be doing this in vain.

    I want to thank you very much for participating, for helping us, and for the excellence of your presentation and your answers. I now open the floor to you for five to ten minutes for closing remarks. Please carry on.

  (1230)  

    Chief Dwight Dorey: Thank you very much.

    Let me just first say again that I am very pleased and honoured to have been able to come here to appear before you. I want to also say I am very enlightened by the interest and the demonstration, by way of questions, of the concern that members have on these kinds of issues. I have to say I take comfort in hearing those questions and comments, and that is something I will report back to my people.

    In closing, I would like to initially ask you, the members of this committee, to ask yourselves this question: What is it to be Canadian? There are basic principles, I believe, to being Canadian, ones that we as Canadians are proud of and espouse wherever we go around the world. We are a fair and a just society. We are a multicultural society. I believe the reality is that the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples has quite similar principles in aboriginal country, and we ask ourselves the same question: What is fair and what is equitable?

    I am a Mi'kmaw person, as I indicated in my introduction. I have Mi'kmaw rights and I have privileges as well, as a Mi'kmaw individual. At the same time, I am a Canadian citizen. I have rights as a Canadian citizen, and I am entitled to expect privileges as a Canadian citizen. I have treaty rights. I have inherent rights under the Constitution, under class 91.24 of the British North America Act, and sections 25 and 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. It's all about balancing those rights that I believe we are dealing with. I have to try to do that internally, and I believe we as a country as a whole, and you as parliamentarians, have to try to deal with that as well.

    The current act as it stands cannot be the starting point for off-reserve Indians, and it cannot be the basis of their rights, inclusion, and fair treatment. That's the fundamental issue. We can't take something that is inherently bad and say that's where we're going to start to try to make things different. We have to go beyond that. The Indian Act, in my opinion, has long been the Berlin Wall in this country when it comes to aboriginal people, and we have to get rid of it.

    I acknowledge at the outset that we have to make some initial changes to the Indian Act to address current problems and situations as the court put out before us in the Corbiere decision. But the long-term objective in amending the act or looking at self-governance for aboriginal people has to go far beyond that. People have to have a broader scope in their outlook, and they have to take a broader scope in coming up with the solutions to these kinds of problems.

    Our people want something better. Bring down that artificial divide that is there. I implore that upon you. At some point in time, that has to happen. What we need to begin with is the modern, fair, and equitable process of recognition and legislative reform. That's all I really ask of you, so please take that seriously.

    Thank you very much.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    To my colleagues, you will be receiving notice of a meeting for the Tuesday when we return from the two weeks in the riding. I will call for a half-hour meeting for future business. You may consider asking that the minister reappear. This information process is not complete.

  (1235)  

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Is there a meeting on Thursday?

    The Chair: No, there's no meeting Thursday unless you want one.

    This process is not complete, but I don't want to drag it on forever. You may want to consider doing a study if we don't receive legislation, but that's what you'll decide on Tuesday when we return.

    Thank you very much everyone. We're adjourned.