AANR Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, February 18, 2003

1525

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

Ms. Deborah Baker (Member of the Squamish Nation, As Individual)

1530

1535

The Chair

Mrs. Velma Baker (Member of the Squamish Nation, As Individual)

1540

The Chair

Mrs. Velma Baker

The Chair

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

The Chair

Mr. Reed Elley

Mrs. Velma Baker

Mr. Reed Elley

Mrs. Velma Baker

Mr. Reed Elley

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

Mrs. Velma Baker

Mr. Pat Martin

Mrs. Velma Baker

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

1545

Mr. Gérard Binet (Frontenac—Mégantic, Lib.)

The Chair

Mrs. Velma Baker

The Chair

Ms. Wendy Lockhart Lundberg (Native Women CARE: Communication, Accountability, Responsiblity, Respect, Equality, As Individual)

1550

The Chair

Mr. Reed Elley

Ms. Wendy Lockhart Lundberg

1555

Mr. Reed Elley

Ms. Wendy Lockhart Lundberg

Mr. Reed Elley

Ms. Wendy Lockhart Lundberg

Mr. Reed Elley

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Wendy Lockhart Lundberg

The Chair

1600

Mr. John Mayba (Individual Presentation)

The Chair

1605

Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, Lib.)

Mr. John Mayba

The Chair

Mr. John Mayba

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.)

Mr. John Mayba

The Chair

Mr. John Mayba

The Chair

Chief Ernest Campbell (Musqueam Indian Band)

1610

1615

1620

1625

The Chair

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

Chief Ernest Campbell

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief Ernest Campbell

1630

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Chief Ernest Campbell

Mr. Pat Martin

Chief Ernest Campbell

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Chief Ernest Campbell

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Chief Ernest Campbell

1635

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Chief Ernest Campbell

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Chief Ernest Campbell

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Chief Ernest Campbell

The Chair

Chief Ernest Campbell

The Chair

Chief Ernest Campbell

The Chair

Chief Ernest Campbell

The Chair

Ms. Denise McDonald (Researcher, Cheam Indian Band)

1640

1645

1650

The Chair

Mr. Reed Elley

Ms. Denise McDonald

1655

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Denise McDonald

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Denise McDonald

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Denise McDonald

The Chair

Mr. Gérard Binet

1700

Ms. Denise McDonald

The Chair

Ms. Amelia Victor (Elder and Councillor, Cheam Indian Band)

The Chair

Ms. Denise McDonald

1705

The Chair

Chief Judith Sayers (Chief Councillor, Hupacasath First Nations)

1710

1715

1720

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief Judith Sayers

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief Judith Sayers

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief Judith Sayers

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

1725

Chief Judith Sayers

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Chief Judith Sayers

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Chief Judith Sayers

1730

Mr. Pat Martin

Chief Judith Sayers

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Chief Judith Sayers

The Chair

Mr. Rick Laliberte

Chief Judith Sayers

Mr. Rick Laliberte

Chief Judith Sayers

1735

Mr. Rick Laliberte

Chief Judith Sayers

The Chair

Chief Judith Sayers

The Chair

Mr. Cliff Turner (As Individual)

The Chair

Ms. Kim Recalma-Clutesi (Chief Councillor, Qualicum First Nation)

1740

1745

The Chair

Ms. Kim Recalma-Clutesi

The Chair

Mr. Reed Elley

Ms. Kim Recalma-Clutesi

1750

Mr. Reed Elley

Ms. Kim Recalma-Clutesi

Mr. Reed Elley

The Chair

Ms. Kim Recalma-Clutesi

The Chair

Mr. Reed Elley

Ms. Kim Recalma-Clutesi

The Chair

Ms. Kim Recalma-Clutesi

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

1755

Ms. Kim Recalma-Clutesi

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Kim Recalma-Clutesi

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Kim Recalma-Clutesi

The Chair

1800

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Ms. Kim Recalma-Clutesi

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Ms. Kim Recalma-Clutesi

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Ms. Kim Recalma-Clutesi

The Chair

Ms. Kim Recalma-Clutesi

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Ms. Kim Recalma-Clutesi

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Ms. Kim Recalma-Clutesi

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Ms. Kim Recalma-Clutesi

1805

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Ms. Kim Recalma-Clutesi

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Kim Recalma-Clutesi

The Chair

Ms. Kim Recalma-Clutesi

1810

The Chair

Ms. Kim Recalma-Clutesi

The Chair

Chief John M. Smith (Tlowitsis First Nation)

1815

1820

The Chair

Chief John Smith

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief John Smith

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief John Smith

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief John Smith

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief John Smith

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief John Smith

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief John Smith

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

1825

Chief John Smith

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief John Smith

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief John Smith

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief John Smith

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief John Smith

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief John Smith

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief John Smith

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Chief John Smith

Mr. Pat Martin

Chief John Smith

Mr. Pat Martin

1830

Chief John Smith

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Chief John Smith

The Chair

Mr. Rick Laliberte

Chief John Smith

Mr. Rick Laliberte

Chief John Smith

Mr. Rick Laliberte

Chief John Smith

Mr. Rick Laliberte

1835

Chief John Smith

The Chair

Ms. Mary Hurley (Committee Researcher)

The Chair

Chief John Smith

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources

NUMBER 030

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, February 18, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹ (1525)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.)): We are resuming pubic hearings on Bill C-7, an act respecting leadership selection, administration, and accountability of Indian bands, and making related amendments to other acts.

For the benefit of those who will be presenting, when we say we start at 3:30 and the end of that presentation is 3:40, we stick to the time. It's very difficult for the chair to cut off someone we have invited to appear, but we're doing four weeks of this, so we will be sticking to the time on all of our presentations. It also prevents criticism of the chair that sometimes we tend to allow people who support us to go longer and others not. We treat everybody the same.

We are pleased to welcome as an individual a member of the Squamish Nation, Deborah Baker.

Ms. Baker, you can make your presentation. We have ten minutes together. If there is time after your presentation, I will allow questions from members. Please proceed.

Ms. Deborah Baker (Member of the Squamish Nation, As Individual): My name is Deborah Baker and I'm a member of the Squamish Nation. I am here to represent myself and my family, not the Squamish Nation.

I would just like to say that the information I have through my own research on the First Nations Governance Act has not been as extensive as that of some of our leadership. In my community, I am not aware of any public forum that has been held, and I am very, very discouraged by this, since it's going to have a major impact on myself, my children, and future children--and all the other members from our nation and other first nations. This is definitely setting precedent. I believe we need to take a little bit more time with it.

My request to members of Parliament who are here in Nanaimo today--as well as in Ottawa and wherever they may be--is that you take a look at tabling Bill C-7.

My whole understanding of Bill C-7, the First Nations Governance Act, is that it means bringing accountability to our leadership and to our membership, because if we are going to be voting in effective leaders, then we want them to be accountable to us. In the past, this has not been possible for whatever reason. I am sure that if you were with me a year and a half ago, when we had our last election, I would have had you sit beside me and hear my concerns about the previous election.

I do not want to bring our dirty laundry to this table; that's not what I'm here for. I'm here to say, as a member of the first nations, a woman, a mother of my children, and a sister, daughter, cousin and a grand-daughter, that there are concerns about the First Nations Governance Act.

I am from the Squamish Nation, as I mentioned. My mother is from Sechelt. She was married to my father, and because of the Indian Act she transferred to another nation. My grandmother and my grandfathers are also first nations.

What you see before you may not look first nations, but I assure that I am first nations and I have first nations ancestry in me. There may be a drop of English or German blood in me, but if I have a nose bleed that will be the end of it. I say that jokingly, and I appreciate your laughter, but I do want you to know that I grew up on the Capilano Reserve. I have lived in Winnipeg. I have lived off reserve.

This First Nations Governance Act, according to Minister Robert Nault, is in the interest of first nations people, to bring better living standards. I ask any one of you in this room today, walk in to any community across first nations, first communities, reserves, walk in to ten homes. They'll let you in, sit you down, and offer you tea and bannock, as some people call it, or fry bread. Ask them, “So what do you think about this First Nations Governance Act? It's going to have an impact on your people.”

They'll say “Pardon me, what are you talking about? I'd like to talk to you about our fishing rights. I'd like to talk to you about our hunting rights. I'd like to talk to you about the finances we receive from the government today. Are they adequate? What about our health care system?” If you walk out of this building today and meet with Canadian citizens, they'll have the same concerns: fishing, hunting, forestry.

Why, I ask myself--and this comes from the heart.... I apologize that I do not have anything written, but I am talking to you from my heart. This is not just me; this is my ancestors talking as well; this is my children and our future generations. My Auntie Maisie is over here, and another member, Wendy, from the Squamish Nation is here. We did not arrange that we would all be talking around the same time; this was done, I guess, by your clerk or whatever.

¹ (1530)

What I am saying is that we have a lot of concerns. There are some positives in the First Nations Governance Act, but I do question it. When it comes to politics in a democracy anywhere, there is no guarantee the elected leadership are going to be what they say they are. It's really unfortunate, because as a native woman and Squamish Nation member, I put my faith in some of these leaders. I believe what they're saying is true. I don't mean to say all of them are corrupt, but just like any other political system, there is still that possibility of corruption. This is really unfortunate. I'm sure members of Parliament, the minister, and the Department of Indian Affairs have had complaints at one time or another about the accountability our people receive today.

I am angry, I am frustrated, and I am confused. We've been under the Indian Act system for how many years? The current year is 2003, so how many generations have we been under the act? My great-grandfather, Sam Scow, from the Nimpkish territory, went to jail because he believed in the potlatch system. That was our system, our noble right system. Today we do not go to jail for it, which is great, but on the other hand our people have gone through so many atrocities. And now we talk about accountability and about fiscal management.

In conclusion, I would just like to say that....

My silence is intentional, because there are over 800,000 first nations status treaty people today, and how many of them are here? How many will you be meeting with over the next four weeks? How many reports will you receive at your table? How many concerns will you have, whether they are in favour of changing certain wording in in Bill C-7 or not? Will it be sufficient? Nobody knows.

A decision will have to be made. But I would say my choice, if I had any say in this or were a member of Parliament, would be to stand up and say “Speaker of the House, could you please table this Bill C-7 until we can get further information from first nations people who are going to be affected by Bill C-7?”

There are surely a number of lawyers hired by the chiefs and councils who have commented on the bill. They have given their legal opinions. They have made a lot of money and will continue to make a lot of money, which is the nature of the business. I have nothing against lawyers, but it's still really unfortunate, because unlike lawyers the people and leadership say things from the heart. I think this is important. I am reading here the Constitution Acts of 1867 and 1982. Can you imagine how many lawyers have made their names by making one interpretation or another of these acts? Now Bill C-7, the proposed First Nations Governance Act, comes along. Once it has been implemented, how many more lawyers and consultants will be making money?

My bottom line is please delay Bill C-7, the First Nations Governance Act, for at least two more sessions, or longer if this is possible, or for whatever it will take. I will personally go door to door and ask the 800,000 first nations people, “Do you understand what Bill C-7 is about? Do you realize how it is going to affect you? And has your existing leadership talked to you about this today, or does it plan to do so in the near future?”

Thank you.

¹ (1535)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I'd like to say you should never apologize for speaking from the heart. You speak well, and your testimony was very helpful.

For the general public, I will say that this committee has been set up by the Speaker of the House. This is not a committee of the Prime Minister, the minister, or the government, but a committee of the House of Commons. We spent three months last spring getting educated about the Indian Act by leaders of the first nations communities and experts. We are putting nine weeks into this bill. We are travelling for four weeks and will spend the other five weeks, or at least four days a week, in Ottawa. So this committee is doing and will try to do the best work it can.

I thank you very much.

Now I welcome a member of the Squamish Nation, Velma Baker, who is representing herself. Again, we have ten minutes.

Mrs. Velma Baker (Member of the Squamish Nation, As Individual): Thank you.

I have to say that I agree with Debbie, my niece. Everything she said is true.

All I could add is that our band runs on $44 million a year, and yet six months into the year we're broke. We're running on empty half the time. Every time we go to ask for something, we don't have the money. Can we get our kids a better education? No, we don't have the money. Where does this money go? They're not accountable to the people for all this money they get. I'm very angry at my chief and council and the government for putting me where I am today. If this never came up, we wouldn't have to be here fighting to keep afloat. As I said, I'm really angry.

You are just coming out of paying off the residential schools. This is going to be even worse. The people are going to be really angry and you are going to get into more problems if you pass this bill without listening to the grassroots.

I don't have an education. I don't know how to read and write. But I'm not going to let somebody come and say “You have to go into self-government whether you like it or not”. Before I go into self-government, I'm going to break the amalgamation and get out. That's the only way I think I'm going to survive today.

That's about all I have to say.

¹ (1540)

The Chair: Thank you very much, Velma. Would you be prepared to answer questions from the members?

Mrs. Velma Baker: Yes, if they speak in plain language.

The Chair: They're very ordinary people. We do our work in the house of common people. We didn't bring any snobs with us.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chair: From the official opposition, Mr. Elley.

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

I want to just take the liberty to say welcome to all of the committee members to my riding of Nanaimo--Cowichan. On behalf of my colleague Dr. James Lunney, who is the member for Nanaimo--Alberni, we want to welcome the committee here and also to thank the members of the Semiahmoo Band. We are meeting today in the traditional territory of that band.

We didn't have an opportunity to question Deborah. Is she going to come back?

The Chair: No, the ten minutes are up.

Mr. Reed Elley: You said, Velma, that Deborah spoke for you and that you agreed with her, so we can take a look at what both of you have said.

Mrs. Velma Baker: Yes.

Mr. Reed Elley: For a year and a half I was the senior critic for Indian affairs for the Canadian Alliance. I've spent most of my time talking with people on reserves. Of course, during the time I was talking with them, the governance act was starting to be talked about. I got into some conversations about it with people on the reserves, and I heard some very interesting things. They're the same kinds of things I just heard from Deborah and now from you. They're angry about this bill. They don't think they've been consulted. They think that there hasn't been a good consultation process. People felt that it was putting the cart before the horse, that a lot of other things should be addressed before we start talking about changes to government structures and that sort of thing.

I want to ask you a question I have asked other native people across this country. If you got everything you wanted in terms of the kind of self-government that would work, do you think that at this point in your history you have the leaders to make it work?

Mrs. Velma Baker: No, not really. We had some leaders, and we fired them. Now we have another bunch, and they're the same way, corrupted. As I always tell my nieces and nephews, money corrupts, money talks. That's the only way to put it.

Mr. Reed Elley: Thank you for coming.

The Chair: Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Thank you very much.

I represent the NDP. My home is in Winnipeg.

The only question I would ask, building off of your testimony and Deborah Baker's testimony, is why now? Why do you think the minister is imposing these changes on first nations people now? It's the first time they've tried to change the Indian Act in over fifty years. We all know that the Indian Act is unjust and should be abolished. Why is he concentrating on these administrative things now, when so many basic needs aren't being addressed?

Mrs. Velma Baker: Well, speaking for myself, I think the government wants to get rid of the natives once and for all. Instead of having to pay out this and pay out that, let's give them one shot, and if they go under, they go under; it's not our problem any more.

That's how I feel. I don't know about the rest of the people.

Mr. Pat Martin: The end of treaty rights--assimilation.

Mrs. Velma Baker: Yes.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you.

The Chair: Before I go to Mr. Binet, if anyone convinces me of that, and if I feel for one minute that is what the government is trying to do, I will resign from this committee immediately. I never say trust me, but I give you my word.

Monsieur Binet.

¹ (1545)

[Translation]

Mr. Gérard Binet (Frontenac—Mégantic, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning. My name is Gérard Binet and I am from the Province of Quebec. I am a Liberal MP and there are no First Nations in my riding. I have been a member of this Committee for the past two years, which has allowed me to see things differently than people who live close to a First Nation. I may perhaps view things in a more objective or realistic manner.

I would like to mention a few facts since one of our responsibilities is also to provide information. The largest consultation ever organized in Canada has been held about this Bill. There have been 335 meetings and 135 hearings. Furthermore, nine letters have been sent to the Chiefs of First Nations, even though several of them did not answer.

Of course, our objective today is to listen to you because our Committee wants to do its best to improve the situation of all First Nations in Canada. You can be sure that I will do my utmost to reach that goal.

[English]

The Chair: Merci, Monsieur Binet.

We still have one minute left. If you'd like to make a final comment, we'd ask you to do that.

Mrs. Velma Baker: What I'd like to say is thank you very much for speaking out like this. I keep telling my grandchildren, great-grandchildren, and children that I don't even feel like a Canadian, because they do not treat us like Canadians.

Can you answer me? Are aboriginals Canadians? I went to Parliament and asked the same thing, and nobody answered me.

We don't have any rights like the immigrants who come in. They have more rights than I do, yet we're first nations people. I said we should have been named “first peoples”.

I'm really angry, so forgive me for today, but that's how I feel.

The Chair: Well, we have heard your message. Thank you very much.

I now welcome, from Native Women CARE--Communication, Accountability, Responsibility, Respect, and Equality--Wendy Lockhart Lundberg, as an individual, for ten minutes.

Ms. Wendy Lockhart Lundberg (Native Women CARE: Communication, Accountability, Responsiblity, Respect, Equality, As Individual): Thank you for this opportunity to appear before you on Bill C-7, the First Nations Governance Act.

I apologize to the committee for not being able to provide you with a copy of my presentation before my appearance, and for the inconvenience this causes in providing committee members with a French-language translation.

The First Nations Governance Act was introduced by the Minister of Indian Affairs as a means to put power in the hands of first nations people themselves. Yet for Squamish people, that power was already taken out of the hands of band members when the First Nations Land Management Act was enacted without a membership vote prior to the signing of the framework agreement.

In a February 19, 1999, letter from Chief Bill Williams of the Squamish Nation, he states:

...Squamish Nation became involved in the process of land management through a council motion on January 31, 1996...Squamish Nation is waiting until the proposed federal legislation becomes a piece of federal legislation (law) before any effort to write the land codes.... As stated, when the proposed legislation has passed all its hurdles meaning Parliament, it is a futile effort to even start when it still is hopes and dreams.

This clearly evidences that the Squamish Indian Band Council did not even consult band members about the very existence of the First Nations Land Management Act. In not requiring a mandate and ratification by way of band member vote, the government was in violation of their judiciary obligation to protect my rights and interests. Therefore, in the absence of a non-derogation clause in Bill C-7, the First Nations Governance Act, what redress is available to me and other band members in this instance to protect our existing section 25 and section 35 aboriginal rights?

With respect to the rights and interests of native women, Bill C-7 falls short in addressing inadequacies of the Indian Act. Bill C-31 was an amendment to the Indian Act that should have provided for the return of native women, but many are blocked from participation in communities on reserve, where they would be able to access programs and services.

My mother, Nona Lockhart, for example, has not had her father's property on reserve restored to her, despite the existence of my grandfather's will that was approved by Indian Affairs.

Bill C-7 is also silent on matrimonial property on reserve, and the notion that this issue will be dealt with pursuant to the provisions of the First Nations Land Management Act unfairly pits native women against Indian elite, compared with statutory provisions available to non-native women.

On the issue of membership, Bill C-7 is silent and does not deal with discriminatory provisions created by Bill C-31. This issue was raised by Senator Chalifoux when she asked Harold Calla, director of finance and councillor, how the Squamish Nation was dealing with the return of women and children under Bill C-31. Harold Calla replied on page 16:20 of the Senate committee proceedings issue 16 as follows:

I am one of those who came back. My children are back.... There is a strong feeling within our community that if you have one ounce of Squamish, you are Squamish. You trace your heritage back through your lineage. Our community has welcomed them.... We have recognized that those who have ancestry that trace their roots back to Squamish are going to be Squamish people and they are wanted.

I was reinstated pursuant to Bill C-31 but I am unable to confer status to my son, Maximilian Lundberg. How will the First Nations Governance Act deal with blatant discrimination such as this when an elected male official reinstated under Bill C-31 can confer status to his children, but a reinstated native woman under Bill C-31 cannot?

The fact is that Squamish Indian Band Council has delayed resolution of my mother's claim by inheritance and they have done everything in their power to block us from full participation in governance affairs and community life. If Bill C-31 were an amendment to the Indian Act by Parliament to which native women have not been able to seek redress, how will we seek redress under this proposed legislation, the First Nations Governance Act?

I do not see specific redress mechanisms written into this legislation that would protect native women in these areas. The legal challenge under the charter, and now potentially under the Canadian Human Rights Act, is not a realistic redress mechanism when native women, the most vulnerable and marginalized people in our society, lack the skills and resources to access the courts.

¹ (1550)

Furthermore, in considering the First Nations Governance Act in conjunction with Bill C-19, the proposed First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act, I also question how the appointment of directors to boards of institutions that have already been established is truly empowering grassroots aboriginal people.

The First Nations Governance Act does not improve on the current situation and it is not going to improve the daily lives of aboriginal people. It is going to make their lives more complicated and pit them against an even more powerful Indian elite.

Would you be willing to live by the provisions of this legislation?

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Every party has had a turn, so we'll start over.

Mr. Elley is next, for two minutes.

Mr. Reed Elley: Thank you very much for coming and sharing with us, Wendy. We really appreciate it.

As a member of Parliament, I have had native women in my office time after time in tears telling me some of the horror stories. I understand what you're saying. I have two native children in my home, two women, and I know some of the things their mothers went through, so I understand what you're saying.

You're saying that this bill will not bring equality for native women on reserve, off reserve, or wherever.

Ms. Wendy Lockhart Lundberg: It will not bring equality to native women on reserve, especially in regard to patrimonial property. Despite the fact that Indian Affairs recently undertook extensive consultations and produced a discussion paper on the provision, there's no protection written into this governance act for that.

¹ (1555)

Mr. Reed Elley: There is mention of an ombudsman in this bill. Do you see the ombudsman as a way for native women to be able to address some of these concerns?

Ms. Wendy Lockhart Lundberg: I think an independent third-party ombudsman-type person or organization would be helpful in allowing people to have some of the problems dealt with that are not being dealt with in their communities.

Mr. Reed Elley: But that's not the way it's set up in this legislation.

Ms. Wendy Lockhart Lundberg: With property issues on reserve, for example, we just do not have those rights that are enshrined for non-native women off reserve. We should really have private property rights and do away with all these band-aid solutions. It's not written into any legislation that we have, and I don't think it's fair to pit the women against their communities and their leaders to try to have it resolved.

Mr. Reed Elley: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Martin is next, for two minutes.

Mr. Pat Martin: I want to thank you for your very excellent presentation. It was just the right balance of technical details and very real emotional outpouring.

There are two things you hit on that I want to focus on. First, Mr. Binet just finished telling us this was the most exhaustive consultation process ever undertaken by the government in the history of mankind, or something to that effect. I say that's nonsense, because the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples was ten times this farce.

I'd like your comments on the lack of consultation on Bill C-7 and the non-derogation clause. The very fact that this bill has no non-derogation clause should lead people to believe that something will be diminished or derogated.

Can you add to either of those points?

Ms. Wendy Lockhart Lundberg: On the consultations, I believe they were a very small baby step forward in allowing some grassroots people to come forward and speak on the legislation. For us it's a first to address a committee such as this before the bill actually goes to the House or is passed. But it still really falls short of extensive consultations.

I would say that many aboriginal people are not aware of the terms of the legislation. More could have been done to reach people. For example, women in the downtown east side--why are they there? Get out there on the streets with flyers, have meetings and tell them about it. Really truly involve them and say “Your rights and your interests are on the line and you should be able to come to speak to this”.

I see the non-derogation clause as an absolute mechanism for the government to get out of their fiduciary responsibilities to aboriginal people. It was the same in the First Nations Land Management Act. As I said, today Squamish Band members don't even know about some of the terms of the land codes. We got our first notice to develop land codes just a week ago, on reserve and off reserve. It was passed four years ago, and they still haven't informed the band members about it.

The consultations fall really short, and the fact that there isn't a non-derogation clause in these pieces of legislation says to me that the government is trying to back out of their fiduciary obligations.

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

I now invite to the table Mr. John Mayba, as an individual. You have ten minutes.

º (1600)

Mr. John Mayba (Individual Presentation): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for having us.

Folksongs are loosely defined as songs of the people, and since we, the people, are presenting to our elected representatives this afternoon, we thought we'd like to use the folksong as a medium. We're going to base our presentation on Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol. It's ironic that this timeless story was written at about the same time the expansion of the so-called Canadian frontier into aboriginal territory was really gathering momentum.

The performers for this afternoon are Gordon Brand on keyboard and John Mayba on vocal. Both are members of the Port Alberni Kairos Committee and the Alberni Valley United Church outreach committee. Finally, we'd like to acknowledge the assistance of songwriter Todd Butler in helping us prepare this presentation. We hope you enjoy it. Our presentation is entitled “Big Brother”, or “A Prayer for Robert Nault”.

Well the ghost of Christmas past visited Robert Nault one Christmas night
Took him back in time before everyone was right
Bob said, I didn't do this but I'm here to make it right
I've got a secret formula, I worked on it all night
Hey Bob, thanks for thinking of us but you still don't get it, do ya
We can fix this on our own, we were doing fine before we knew ya.
Don't let this opportunity to learn from one another
Be destroyed by your need to play big brother

The ghost of Christmas present was the next to visit Bob
It showed how years of colonialism had created Bobby's job
It showed him how first nations' culture has been virtually destroyed
But still the spirit's growing strong, Bob, and the spirit is annoyed
Thanks for thinking of us but you still don't get it, do ya
We can fix this on our own, we were doing fine before we knew ya
Don't let this opportunity to learn from one another
Be destroyed by your need to play big brother. Big brother

The ghost of Christmas future was the last to visit Nault
It said if you don't do the right thing now, Bob, history will say it was your fault.
That you missed an opportunity that will never come again
Hey Bob, don't tell us what to do, just lend us a hand
So Robert when you're thinking of us try to think of us as partners
Nation to nation working together toward a common future
I'd scrap that Bill C-7, instead let's learn from one another
Don't destroy us by your need to play big brother
Don't destroy us by your need to play big brother

The Chair: Thank you very much. Only Monsieur Binet knows how well our translator sings your song in French.

One thing I like about my job is when I open a door I never know what's awaiting me.

The third point I'll make is nobody will accuse me of overusing my power of ruling people out of order.

I think the next question is to the Liberal side--anyone? Maybe you'd like to sing a song. Do you have a guitar?

Mr. Laliberte.

º (1605)

Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, Lib.): I have just a question. One of your lines is “an opportunity to learn from one another.” Do you think, in our history as Canada, the Crown and the Government of Canada have taken the appropriate steps to learn from the aboriginal nations, to create a country that you're singing about?

Mr. John Mayba: Well, I'm not a historian, but I guess you've grasped the key to the presentation. The way it's going, in my study of this bill, it isn't going to give any room for aboriginal people to express their own creativity, develop their own options for dealing with the difficult questions that come up for governments, not only here but all over the world.

I guess the point in us writing the song was to say we want to encourage the government to give aboriginal people that opportunity to play a role in the shaping of not only their own future, but the future of this country and the world. So that's what we're hoping will happen.

The Chair: Okay. Are there any other questions?

We thank you very much. That was very entertaining. Your timing was good, because we've had a difficult two days, not because things didn't go well--they went extremely well--but we've overloaded our days and we're feeling it today.

Thank you very much.

Mr. John Mayba: I could give a copy of the song to everyone.

The Chair: If you would give it to the clerk, it will be distributed.

Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): Is there a copyright on this?

Mr. John Mayba: If you let us know, we'll probably give permission.

The Chair: If you should choose to sing it yourself on cassette and send it to me, I will personally give it to Bob Nault for you.

Mr. John Mayba: I was hoping we'd be able to do that. We might even put it on a CD for him.

The Chair: Whatever you say. Send it to me, and I'll make sure I deliver it by hand.

We're skipping a few individual presentations and going on to the Musqueam Indian Band. We are pleased to have with us Chief Ernest Campbell.

Welcome, Chief. We have 30 minutes for this presentation. We invite you to make your presentation and to introduce to us your colleague.

Chief Ernest Campbell (Musqueam Indian Band): Thank you. I am Chief Ernest Campbell of Musqueam.

Before I introduce my colleague, I'd just like to thank the members of the Nanaimo first nations in this traditional territory for allowing us to come into their territory to conduct this business today. I thank them for that, and I thank you for the opportunity to make a presentation today.

My colleague is Lewis Harvey, legal counsel for the Musqueam Indian Band.

The Chair: Welcome.

Chief Ernest Campbell: As I mentioned earlier, we welcome this opportunity to make this presentation. I know the time is limited, and I want to leave time for questions by members of this committee and for some dialogue. Recognizing this, I will confine myself to what I consider the most important issues. We may be able to provide a more detailed written commentary to the committee at a later date. We'll get into more detail for you to review later on.

My purpose in coming here is not to speak so much to the content of Bill C-7 as to the process of its creation. We do have concerns about the content, and as I said, we hope to share these with you in a more detailed written submission to be filed with you later. My purpose is to talk more about the process by which this bill has been developed.

The process has been top-down. We have not been involved or had any meaningful input. If our values and priorities are reflected in the bill, it is not because we have been consulted or heard from, because we have not. We've always been promised from past ministers--and I go back quite a few years--that the Indian Act would not be amended or changed in any way whatsoever without consultation and input from the first nations of this country. I think since its inception in 1876, probably half a dozen times, if that, have there been any meaningful amendments to the Indian Act, and I don't see a rush to do it now.

We have an inherent right to self-government, as recognized from the top courts and the Constitution of this country. If that's what we're going to do, let's sit down and start talking self-government and work together to amend the act or talk about self-government. We've asked for that opportunity. If you want to amend the Indian Act, okay, let's sit down--we told Nault that--and amend it, but with our agenda items also. We were willing to talk. That didn't happen.

I don't think there's a mad rush for this to get through. So if we can sit down and talk about it, we would like that opportunity, but we'd like to have input into it.

As I mentioned earlier, we have other concerns, major concerns, that affect our community, other than spending a lot of time and effort on this initiative at this time--not that it's not a priority, or not that we would not like to see amendments to it, but we have other major issues that could be dealt with.

Musqueam numbers about 1,100 members. We have three reserves in the lower mainland area. Our main reserve, IR No. 2, consists of 416 acres in the southwestern part of Vancouver, on the north bank of the Fraser River. Our other two reserves are much smaller and are of little practical value.

IR No. 3 is only a few acres located on Sea Island and is essentially unusable for any purpose because it is unserviced, without access, and is subject to environmental constraints on any use we might care to put it to.

IR No. 4, in Ladner, is a little larger, about 40 acres, but it has no services and cannot be used for housing or development. It is in a provincial agricultural land reserve area and is rented out on a short-term agricultural lease.

You'll have to excuse me, I'm fighting a cold and a little bit of flu this morning.

Land and housing are Musqueam's priorities. Governance is important to us, and while there are aspects of our existing arrangements that can be improved, governance is not at the top of our priorities.

º (1610)

If we had unlimited resources, my community would want to implement modest and incremental governance changes--for example, replace the two-year term for council, elect for a longer term, have staggered elections, etc. But we do have limited resources. And while Bill C-7 may reflect the government's priorities, it does not reflect ours.

Why is land support so important to us? Without more land, and soon, we will cease to exist as Musqueam. What good is good governance if we have no land to govern? We need land for economic development to generate jobs. Our social assistance and unemployment rates are high. We need land for housing families. Our children cannot flourish and thrive without homes in our community. In our community alone, we have over 200 people on our waiting list. We don't have the land base to provide it for them in our main reserve.

The federal government is supposed to be our fiduciary. As we understand the concept, that means it is supposed to be concerned with protecting our interests and welfare. If that is so, why is it that the government is not working with us in partnership to address our land needs? Sure, there is a treaty process. We are in it; we have been since the beginning. This process is supposed to produce a treaty that will meet our land needs. If that were the government's true intention, why then is it selling off as fast as it can every remaining parcel of federal crown land held in our traditional territory? It's business as usual.

In November and December of last year, the federal government attempted to sell a property in Richmond called the Garden City to the City of Richmond so that Richmond could have a convention centre. We had to go to court to stop it. We were successful in at least delaying things, but the government managed to suck out $50,000 from our community, which is what it cost us to stop that process, or delay it. This was completely unnecessary. We had to spend $50,000 just to get the government to talk to us, to take into account our interest in this property, and to work out a practical accommodation. It hasn't happened yet.

If the government is my fiduciary, I dread meeting my adversary.

This is not a question just of real estate. This is about people--my people, our children. Our kids are not made to feel welcome in the public school systems in Vancouver. I'm not talking necessarily about overt discrimination. There's some of that. But it's mostly the feeling our kids get when, for example, they notice that they never get invited to homes of their white schoolmates. Some do--very few--but the majority don't. Or a teacher makes assumptions about them based primarily on the fact that they are Musqueam kids. By about grade 9 or 10, they start to drop out. You would too, if you were made to feel inferior because of who you are.

Even with schooling, our kids have difficulty finding decent jobs, as they have to overcome discrimination and stereotyping in the community around them. There are only so many jobs available in the band office--administering social assistance, taking over the programs, operating the programs, and administering the programs that we have taken over from the Department of Indian Affairs.

So we have a large group of our youth in their teens and early twenties without housing, economic opportunity, education, or employment. When your kids are dreaming about what they are going to become, too many of ours are giving up hope. They turn on themselves and seek a sense of worth and belonging in alcohol and drugs.

I am a proud man, very proud of my heritage and proud of my community. I have served my community for over 30 years now as an elected member of the council. But as proud as I am, I admit we need help--not handouts, but help. We need cooperation and support.

This is not a time for pride--mine or yours. It is a time for honesty, caring, and working together.

º (1615)

The help we need is not just another Ottawa prescription by senior bureaucrats in the Department of Indian Affairs. The Department of Finance and the Department of Justice, while their intentions may be entirely honourable and honest, are nevertheless writing the prescription informed only by what they think is in our best interests. This “Father Knows Best” approach has failed miserably over the entire history of Indian-government relations.

The kind of help we need is from the ground up, the kind that reflects the values, culture, interests, and priorities of our communities. Only Musqueam can tell you about what matters most at Musqueam. But government can only hear what we say if you first listen.

This takes me to my main point about Bill C-7. I stress once more that our main concern with Bill C-7 is not so much what is in the bill as the process followed by the government in its creation. There are things in the bill we might have chosen by ourselves if we had been given a chance to have a say in the matter. We were not given a chance. We were not consulted until the printer's ink was dry and the department organized information sessions to explain what others had decided was best for us.

The government rebuffed the input of our national body, the Assembly of First Nations. It certainly ignored Musqueam. I know of no first nation or tribal council whose input was sought. Not only were the duly elected officials of first nations governments ignored; the government went around us and engaged in a supposed consultation with our constituents using the department's Internet site and questionnaires.

How can any bill supposedly aimed at building self-government possibly succeed or have any legitimacy among those who are expected to be governed under it? You cannot build self-government for someone else. You certainly cannot do it by undermining the legitimate governments we already have.

I'm not about to tell you how to fix this problem. I know that other first nations organizations have made presentations on this subject. I ask that you think hard about what you are trying to accomplish with this bill. If real self-government is what you have in mind, then you have to urge the government to go back to the beginning and to engage in the kind of constructive consultation that will be essential for the success of any of this legislation. If this does not happen, I think you—and we, the first nations of Canada—are bound to be disappointed.

I know this will delay the bill. That is perhaps unfortunate, but if we're going to tackle these issues, let's do it right, and let's do it right the first time. You cannot impose self-government on a people any more than you can force an individual to be free.

In an excellent paper by Stephen Cornell, Miriam Jorgenson, and Joseph P. Kait, the point I'm trying to make is put this way:

Does this mean that we find the specific details of the codes and regimes in the FNGA poorly chosen? Not necessarily. The legislation clearly is an attempt to specify certain “good governance” practices and mandate those practices among First Nations, and many of those practices make sense. What concerns us is the approach, which is a familiar one: again, it's what the United States, historically, has attempted to do not only with its own indigenous peoples but with the nations around the world. It is characterized by two assumptions: number one, that there is a single model of good governance that can be successfully applied across societies, and number two, that the federal government knows what that model is. Judging from the U.S. experience, this is not a successful recipe for good governance or for effectively responding to “the particular needs and aspirations” of a people.

º (1620)

The authors of that passage are from the Native Nations Institute and the Harvard Project. They know what they're talking about.

As a modest suggestion, if government is unwilling to open the bill up for real, effective community-based consultation, I have what I think you may find a more modest suggestion that would make the bill more consistent with the principles of democratic and accountable self-governance. In fact, the inspiration for my suggestion comes from that bill itself.

I refer to subclause 4(2). It says that a governance code will only come into force if adopted in a referendum vote of all eligible voters. Under the bill, if a band does not adopt the code within two years, then the code specified in the regulations would take effect by default. They're laying the groundwork, telling you what has to be done. If you don't adopt your own, then the rules and regulations are there, and it's going to be done anyhow.

So the scheme now is one that requires referendum approval for adoption of a governance code. However, the codes that will be adopted by the minister in the regulations do not require any approval by those who will be governed under them, and neither does the bill require any approval as a condition of its application to a first nation. Some might suggest this is a rather lopsided “do as I say, not as I do” version of democracy.

My suggestion is simple. I propose that the bill be amended so that it would only apply to a first nation once the first nation adopted its provisions in a referendum vote of the kind provided in subclause 4(2). While a bill with this amendment would still not be perfect, it would be an improvement.

But I still say, if we want to make any amendments to the Indian Act, let's sit down and do it, and have our agenda items there also. Give us that opportunity.

Thank you.

º (1625)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We have twelve minutes left, so we'll say four minutes per party.

Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance): Thank you.

I appreciate very much, Mr. Campbell, your being here today. We've had some interesting and insightful presentations in Red Deer. Then, coming this way, it's good to get the perspective of folks here.

I want to first mention what was alluded to by my Canadian Alliance colleague, Reed Elley. James Lunney is not able to be here. He is watching and following closely. He has his assistant Jim Chutka here, who's going to be observing everything we say and helpfully monitor for James Lunney, who is the member of Parliament for Nanaimo.

I think these are important consultations, if only to hear in some cases that people don't think this is a good bill. In other cases we may hear some suggestions as to what are the major problems in clauses of the bill such that it could be changed or adjusted.

From what you said at the outset in your very opening remarks, am I to understand that on the issues of leadership selection, financial management and accountability, and administration of government, you basically are confident you have those covered off already, at least in an adequate kind of fashion, so therefore the other things loom much larger? Is that what I'm hearing you say? Or is it that you don't really have these covered, but they're just so far down that they really don't deserve much time and the other issues are much more pressing?

Chief Ernest Campbell: Yes, that's true. I'm not saying this is a waste of time, but we have other priorities that are more important to us at this time.

You talk about what I mentioned earlier, that possibly the contents of the bill.... You talk about accountability and transparency. We do that. You talk about elections. Without the Indian Act, if you wanted to talk to me about elections, there are differences. There's the traditional method. We had a pretty darn good method prior to the Indian Act of choosing our leaders and everything. Yet you hear today, even yet, about some chiefs or leaders or elected officials, “What are you?” And they reply, “I'm an Indian Act chief”, or “I'm a traditional chief in the traditional manner”. We could do it, but what I'm saying is we don't necessarily need to be told how to elect our leaders by an amendment to the Indian Act.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Could you just insert those things I assume you already have together in some written form? Maybe that would suffice in terms of Bill C-7, would it not, to cover it off?

Chief Ernest Campbell: Take what I mentioned earlier, the accountability: I think our community is more scrutinized than any first nation in the country. They know everything that's going on in our budget, everything. We're not afraid of that.

There are some things there that really concern us, but what I'm getting at is we didn't have even the opportunity to get there and go through it with them. The agenda to amend the Indian Act was there. It's Nault's agenda, his initiative. We didn't have the opportunity to go there with our agenda. There are probably more important things in the Indian Act that may affect Musqueam and other first nations that could be amended, rather than what he's putting in there.

You talk about self-government and the inherent right to self-government; that's what we should be doing. Let's start negotiating self-government instead of taking this piecemeal approach to the Indian Act. As I said earlier, I don't think there's a mad rush. Since its inception, it might have been amended three or four times in minor amendments, so what's the mad rush now?

It's the process that bothers me. We had no input into it. It's just like big brother telling us he knows what's best for us, whether we agree with it or not, whether it's good or not.

º (1630)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Martin, you have four minutes.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you, Chief Campbell.

I'm from Winnipeg and with the NDP. I'd like to talk about the process too.

You made the point that the way this is being handled is a top-down, Eurocentric, colonial approach. It's “we're going to tell you what you need” again. We agree.

There have been legal interpretations as to what constitutes broad consultation. Your legal counsel might want to comment on this. I would argue that it isn't just stapling a notice on the telephone pole in a community and saying “Next Tuesday night we're going to have a meeting on how you want to change the Indian Act, so come on down”. That's about all that happened in most communities, with no money to write a brief, no analysis, no presentations, no real asking “What do you think should be changed?”. This is the first time we're going to open this act in fifty years.

In the process--and I don't have enough time to go into the details--they spent $10 million on this farce of a consultation, which came out of the A-base budget of Indian Affairs. They say it's going to cost $120 million to implement, to force 633 first nations to do a bunch of stuff they don't want to do. We estimate it will be over $1 billion, and that will also come out of the A-base budget, rather than going to programs for housing, education, health care.

Do you want to comment on that, trying to force people to do things they don't want to do?

Chief Ernest Campbell: As I think I mentioned in our presentation, you're exactly right, if it's going into the millions and billions of dollars to do something, I think those moneys would be better spent on housing and education and welfare in native communities to bring up their standard of living. It could go to better use than this top-down, so-called consultation with the amendments to the Indian Act now.

Mr. Pat Martin: Yes, we think Bob Nault has personally set back relations with first nations by fifty years.

You put forward the first meaningful amendment, really, that we've heard in some of these consultations, that it would be less offensive if there were no default code. In other words, if and when a first nation wanted to ratify these changes and wanted to implement them, they'd be there, but if they didn't do it within two years, it wouldn't be rammed down their throats. That would make it less offensive, I suppose.

We heard another brief, though, that said “Mr. Nault, please, take one step back, shelve this bill, begin a real consultation with first nations leadership, and let's move forward together on significant changes to the Indian Act.” Would that be your ultimate recommendation?

Chief Ernest Campbell: That would be the first thing we wanted to get at right at the beginning. We mentioned at many meetings that if Nault or anyone else wants to amend the Indian Act, okay, let's sit down and amend it, but let's not have things pushed down our throats and be told that this is what's good for us.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Hubbard.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Chief, I might be wrong, but we've been told that Mr. Nault, or the department, sent a good number of letters to the various chiefs across Canada asking them to sit down with him to consult and to look at the possibility of changes to the Indian Act. Did you, as the chief, get letters from them?

Chief Ernest Campbell: I haven't received a letter personally from Mr. Nault to sit down and have consultation or amend the Indian Act. He might have sent some to band members. I'm not aware. I haven't seen a letter of that nature.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: The process, I'm sure, at least what we've been told, is that letters have been sent and many chiefs decided not to participate. But in your case there were no letters. Your council didn't look at those letters and say this is an opportunity for us to look at possible draft legislation--

Chief Ernest Campbell: Well, I think they had the consultation process. I think we, as members of the Assembly of First Nations, had resolutions, not to that effect, but if you want to amend the resolution, let's sit down and amend the Indian Act. Okay, let's do it. But, regardless, his agenda was going to be there. I didn't get that opportunity. I haven't seen any invitation to sit down and amend the Indian Act.

º (1635)

Mr. Charles Hubbard: We may be playing with words, but--

Chief Ernest Campbell: Wasn't it about 1% or 1.2% of first nations responded to the questionnaire or the letter you're talking about?

Mr. Charles Hubbard: There was no series of letters that came to you, as chief, or to your chief in council?

Chief Ernest Campbell: No.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: There was not.

Now, Mr. Martin referred to no changes. Back in 1996-97, another major effort was made to change the Indian Act. At that time a good number of chiefs across Canada participated in it. I'm sure our chair is quite aware of that, because at that time he was chair. At that time the proposal was that the Indian Act would be amended, subject to an acceptance individually by various chiefs and councils. In other words, there was an optional clause to the new act. You could live under the old act or under the new act. And that act, of course, died on the order paper back in 1997. So there have been changes, Mr. Martin, or at least opportunities to change.

Pardon?

Mr. Pat Martin: That was on the order paper, I recall--

The Chair: Order.

Mr. Hubbard has the floor.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: We want to hear, in terms of what you see with the new proposal, what you think is good about it and what isn't good. And what you're really saying is wait. From your perspective, you'd prefer to wait another period of time before changes--

Chief Ernest Campbell: Well, I'd like to have the opportunity.... Somebody is putting something in front of me and they're telling me, “Here, this is good for you; I'm going to amend this act on your behalf.” I had no opportunity to have any input or consultation into that process. The process is the problem. If you want to talk about amending, as I mentioned earlier, the Indian Act, let's sit down and do it, or let's talk self-government, the inherent right to self-government.

I'm aware of amendments to the Indian Act. I think it was, I'm not sure, Dr. Owen Anderson who was out here. He had a five-year plan to get rid of the Indian Act in the 1980s. It went to some committees and everything. That came and went. I forget the gentleman's name now--the Minister of Indian Affairs prior to Jane Stewart--but he's the one who made a statement in Vancouver: you have no worry, no fear whatsoever that there's ever going to be an amendment to the Indian Act; it won't be done unless you agree to it and you have consultation and you have input into it. This hasn't happened yet. That's the problem.

The Chair: That completes the time we have for this testimony. We appreciate your input.

Chief Ernest Campbell: Thank you.

The Chair: The reason we are here today is to consult with you, as a committee.

Chief Ernest Campbell: Consultation, is it? After the fact.

The Chair: No, it's not after the fact. The bill is going back to the House for two readings.

Chief Ernest Campbell: Okay, thank you.

The Chair: But I grant you that when you say you want consultation, you mean government to government. And this is not government. This is a committee of the House of Commons. I'll grant you that.

I invite to the table, from the Cheam Indian Band, Chief June Quipp. We have 30 minutes.

I'm told that Denise McDonald is replacing Chief June Quipp and she is accompanied by Amelia Victor.

Welcome. Please proceed.

Ms. Denise McDonald (Researcher, Cheam Indian Band): Good afternoon. As you've just heard, my name is Denise McDonald. I'm a member of the Cheam Band and I'm here as a representative for Cheam, for the people of Cheam in addressing this First Nations Governance Act.

I'd like to start off by stating that we have never ceded any rights to govern ourselves or our land.

[Witness speaks in her native language]

The Xwexwilmexw of Ch'iyo:m of Cheam affirm that we are Pilalt. Our jurisdiction to govern our territory and our people is inherent, inalienable, and sacred, as it was conferred to us by Chichelh Si:yam. Canada has absolutely no right to impose the governance act on the people of Cheam.

Our relationship with the newcomers in the beginning was tolerable. I'll review a portion of the Canadian history that is not typically taught in the Canadian public school system. We have to go back to the diplomatic relations in the trade and settlement period, and I think it's very worth while to go back and review some of the relationship history.

From the earliest times in our history with the first Europeans who came to the Americas there was clear international understanding, recognition, and precedent of our right to govern ourselves. European constitutionalism was founded upon principles of recognition that all people have fundamental rights to live and govern themselves by their own established laws, institutions, and customs. Early European treaties with indigenous people were founded on these basic principles.

Treaty-making is not new to us as indigenous people. The indigenous people of the Americas had a long history of treaty-making before contact with Europeans. Indigenous and European peoples were able to enter international-style treaties because of the recognized diplomatic practices of indigenous and European people. This has been referred to as treaty constitutionalism.

The European conventions that laid the foundations in their early constitutionalism when they arrived here were as follows. The first convention was that of mutual recognition. This was a convention that recognized that both peoples were independent and self-governing. The second convention was mutual consent, which was defined by Locke as what touches all should be agreed to by all. The third convention was continuity, which meant to continue to recognize this over time.

On our indigenous side a good example of indigenous treaty-making principles is the Two Row Wampum Belt, and I quote:

The metaphor for this relationship--two vessels, each possessingits own integrity, travelling the river of time together--was conveyedvisually on a wampum belt of two parallel purple lines (representingpower) on a background of white beads (representing peace). In thisrespectful (co-equal) friendship and alliance, any interference with theother partner's autonomy, freedom, or powers was expresslyforbidden.

A Blood Tribe elder described their concept of treaty-making as:

Treaty is when two powerful nations come together into a peace agreement, both parties coming forward in a peaceful, reconciliatory approach by exercising a sacred oath through the symbolic way of peace, which is smoking a sacred pipe and also through the exchange of gifts to sanction the agreement, which can never be broken.

º (1640)

Albert Louie, a Stó:lo elder who had strong family ties to our people, was interviewed in 1965. He told of a peace pipe that was widely used by our people for more than 200 years before contact. The story of the peace pipe is compelling evidence of the extensive treaty-making relationship that existed among our people over a long period of time.

Somewhere along the way a change in the nation-to-nation relationship occurred--for reasons of expediency. So what happened?

The American Revolution was fought because the newcomers felt that Britain breached the three diplomatic principles. The newcomers who were settling in North America had an expectation to be the recipients of these three conventions. They felt Britain wasn't abiding by them.

Once these newcomers achieved independence from their mother country in the American Revolution, the Americans ignored these principles because they now had to deal with native Americans. The rules changed once the focus became inward within the continent of North America.

Unfortunately, it is clear that political expediency then does not seem much different from political expediency today. During the period when Canada needed the indigenous peoples as allies in its struggles with the Americans, Canada regularly adhered to these three principles. But Canada eventually followed suit, going down the same slippery path the Americans were going down.

After the War of 1812, when Canada no longer needed indigenous peoples, Canada chose to ignore the principles. By 1840 this reasoning became so twisted that Lord Durham concluded that the convention of continuity was one of the root causes of conflict in Canada, virtually terminating the principles.

Theft by legislation became a new reality for indigenous peoples in Canada. The Indian Act has been the main tool here, which we live with yet today. Outright theft or the taking with no consent or compensation, non-recognition of aboriginal rights and titles, and surrender clauses became the norm for aboriginal peoples. This colonial relationship has been referred to as “domestication”, through which states aimed to subvert the position of indigenous peoples as peoples and destroy our international status.

Now we sit here today with the First Nations Governance Act before us, sitting in a forum we had nothing to do with, which we're not a part of creating. According to Canada, the First Nations Governance Act is supported by many first nations. This is simply not true. There is significant opposition to this act from indigenous nations across Canada.

The vast majority of indigenous nations are completely opposed to this legislation in any form. Every major native organization stands in total opposition to the governance act. The Pilalt of Cheam absolutely oppose the First Nations Governance Act. The people of Cheam have an inherent right to govern ourselves. This right has never been ceded. There is nothing in this act that even resembles good-faith diplomatic relations.

When a nation-state like Canada forces the wholesale application of a bad act on indigenous peoples, the result is an abusive relationship. The domestication model reduces indigenous peoples to the equivalent of domestic violence at the hands of a batterer.

As Dr. Rudy Rÿser states:

Abandoning any right to international identity or an international personality in favor of falling under the absolute control of another political group which has an international identity is equivalent to an independent individual granting absolute power to another person; giving that person full power of discretion.

º (1645)

The relationship this bill brings to mind is that of the batterer. A cyclical batterer has a fragile sense of self. A cyclical abuser will often flatly deny what harm they have done. Battering involves de-individuated violence in which a person caught in its grip is unresponsive to cues from its victim. It ends up being a vicious cycle of honeymoon, tension buildup, battering, and the contrition phase, which leads to a relationship where the couple is perpetually engaged in the dance of traumatic bonding. The battering relationship is based on a strange loyalty to each other.

Canada already had its honeymoon period when it dreamed up and announced this bad bill. We are at this moment experiencing the tension, and the battering will begin the day this bill is passed and implemented. There never will be a contrition phase, because Canada will have us just where they want us: under battered legal control.

The domestication paradigm has become a paradigm by virtue of which the factor of domestication is endowed with absolute explanatory value. The present and continuing relationship between Canada and the indigenous peoples is unilateral and primitive. Canada is in the process of imposing the First Nations Governance Act on all indigenous peoples via the domestication model.

In closing, I urge you to remember who helped the newly arriving Europeans survive and find their way around this vast country. I urge you to bear in mind that in the War of 1812 your Iroquois allies drove back the Americans, who had intentions of taking what is now Canada. Let's celebrate the fact that the name of this country, Canada, derives from an Iroquois name and that many provinces and cities also have indigenous names. The name of the city I live closest to, Chilliwack, comes from our Halkomelem language. Do not forget that the locations of many Canadian cities were at one time indigenous villages. The highways and roads of this country were originally trails used by indigenous peoples.

Canada, since you are the recent arrival, you prove to us how you have a clear and indisputable right to implement this First Nations Governance Act. And I wish you good luck.

º (1650)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Before we go to questions, I just want to say that as a committee we're not in the process of imposing the Indian Act. The Indian Act is in existence. The job that has been asked of us by the House of Commons is to consult the first nations people and to try to make those amendments better and to return it to the House.

I understand what you're saying, but I have to clarify the role of the committee, and it's only to deal with Bill C-7, which contains amendments to the existing act. I say this because many groups have asked us to abolish, destroy, or burn it, all kinds of terms, and we're not able to do that. What we could do is vote against every clause of Bill C-7. That would in essence send it back to the House suggesting that it be quashed. But the Indian Act still exists. I won't get into a debate as to the things you said, because I don't dispute them.

We'll go to questions.

Mr. Elley, four minutes.

Mr. Reed Elley: Thank you very much.

There's no question that we need to hear what you have just said. It is a view of history that, you're quite right, is not taught in school, at least none of the schools I attended, so it's good for us to hear that. I respect that viewpoint from you.

I would be very interested, Denise, if you could then share with us what you think we should do.

Ms. Denise McDonald: I like the earlier suggestions: rip it up, abolish it, destroy it, whatever.

We, the Pilalt, the Cheam of the Pilalt, are in the process of putting together our declaration, which asserts our rights to govern ourselves. I have yet to see a treaty that gives you the right to do this. I ask if you could prove your right to do this.

º (1655)

The Chair: Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you very much for a very powerful presentation. I appreciated the analogy you made about a battered woman syndrome or the--

Ms. Denise McDonald: Battered persons.

Mr. Pat Martin: Battering syndrome; it's not necessarily battered women.

I agree with you that the Eurocentric, colonial approach that this government is taking in trying to impose this act and the whole suite of legislation--which is Bill C-6, Bill C-7, and Bill C-19--takes advantage or is an abuse of the imbalance in the power of relationship that's being manipulated here. That's the opinion of my party, the NDP. We're critical of it.

I also appreciate your guidance, and I'm glad it is on the record that your recommendation would be to withdraw this bill, because you've questioned the legitimacy of government to even have the right to impose these amendments. If I have that straight, I'm glad you put that on the record.

I guess, from a technical point of view, one of the most threatening things about this bill or the reason first nations people have reason to be apprehensive about these pieces of legislation is the absence of a non-derogation clause. Would you care to comment on that, that this bill is coming forward with a non-derogation clause that doesn't...? In other words, people have reason to believe there are aspects of the bill that will diminish existing inherent...well, nothing can diminish inherent rights, but existing treaty rights.

Ms. Denise McDonald: You'll have to clarify what the non-derogation clause is. I didn't go into depth in studying this document; it's a waste of time.

Mr. Pat Martin: From a principle point of view, then, most pieces of legislation dealing with aboriginal issues have a clause that says nothing in this bill shall be interpreted so as to diminish existing inherent treaty or constitutional rights. The absence of such a clause in this bill, to me, screams out that the government is trying to diminish or reduce existing rights. Would you comment on that?

Ms. Denise McDonald: Thank you for the clarification.

I will once again go back to my battering model. I think we know about promises.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Binet.

Mr. Gérard Binet: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to congratulate you for your statements, Mrs. Mcdonald. You talked about the past, about Native rights and about treaties. I am very pleased that you did that since all this is all quite new to me.

About Bill C-7, our Minister had given the instruction not to interfere on Native rights and treaty rights and not to change anything relating to the fiduciary responsibility. Do you believe that this objective has been met?

» (1700)

[English]

Ms. Denise McDonald: No, I don't think that much of what the Canadian government or the British Columbia government have done has done anything to safeguard our place in our own homeland. The British Columbia government right now is implementing land plans that severely threaten our aboriginal rights and titles. The working forest plan and the recreation stewardship plan together speak to 100% of crown land, and that is going to impact on our aboriginal title. And I absolutely see no point in the First Nations Governance Act.

These kinds of plans to govern us are given generous infusions of money, funding, but there is no funding presented to us to become independent and declare our own right to govern ourselves and what rules we are going to govern ourselves by. So, no, I don't see really much that the governments are doing to safeguard our place in our own homeland.

Thank you.

The Chair: We have time for a two-minute round. Do you wish that, or do you wish closing remarks?

You have seven minutes left if you wish to make closing remarks.

We do a round, or we don't. We don't do part rounds.

Ms. Amelia Victor (Elder and Councillor, Cheam Indian Band): I'm a councillor for our community. I was a bit reluctant to come to these meetings, but also afraid not to come, because we don't know what might be steamrolled over us if we're not on guard.

As my siya'yi here mentioned, this truly is not our document. Were you to implement a document that we had created, I don't think it would work either, because there are just two diverse cultures.

It's the same in first nation communities. What works here on the west coast isn't necessarily going to work on the east coast. That's why we are going ahead with developing our own charter. Also I believe the Stó:lõ Nation is developing a charter, and that's in our own territory as well. I think that's probably the only way that thing is going to work.

I heard you mention that this is a consultation with first nations people to make amendments for a better act. But I still don't see how that will work, because it's still going to be something that's being presented to us and written by someone else who is not first nation, who has not gone through the impact of colonization and suffered as we have, and alienated territories.

As we speak, this is happening. The Canadian government is supposed to have a fiduciary obligation to first nations people. However, we're still being invaded.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Ms. McDonald, do you wish to make comments?

Ms. Denise McDonald: I have one other comment, which I think is very important for everyone to consider.

We all know that we're collective communities. “Collective” to me means I am a part of an extended family. That is the smallest working unit of my society. I have a Si:yam who's the head of that family. That was a system we had from time immemorial, until Canada destroyed it, pulled it apart, and imposed its own system and leadership. It chose the leaders.

When you're considering this, I would also like to ask you to think about where the collective is in this document. I think it's a critical question to consider, because once we break that collective down, I fear for our future and our children. So I think the collective aspect of our communities is critically important to take into consideration. We were organized around that. If you look at the document, ask yourself, where is the collective in this?

» (1705)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We now invite to the table, from the Hupacasath First Nations, Chief Judith Sayers, chief councillor.

Welcome.

Again, we have 30 minutes.

Chief Judith Sayers (Chief Councillor, Hupacasath First Nations): Thank you.

Good afternoon to all of you.

I would first like to acknowledge the Snuneymuxw people, whose land we are on, who have allowed us to come here and partake of the beauty and strength of their land. I think it's important to do this.

No one can deny the Indian Act is outdated, outmoded, and should be abolished. We have been saying this for years. The Indian Act is and always has been a law that was drafted, passed, and implemented without first nation involvement and consent. Because of this the Indian Act has never been successful.

When we discussed Bill C-7 in our community--and we understand this is not the Indian Act--one of our young people said “I have a problem with living with a law that was passed and created for my great-great-grandfather's generation. And now we have this new law that we're not going to be involved in again, and it offends me.” Other comments included “It is taking back powers” and “It is an innovative way of going back 20 years”.

The Hupacasath First Nation would like to be on the record as being opposed to the First Nations Governance Act as another piece of legislation that has been put in place without proper processes. No one will argue that first nations need more effective tools of governance. No one will argue that in order for first nations to be more effective as the governments we are, we need recognition of what we really need.

The minister has responded to those issues he hears complaints about, the high-profile ones that hit the front pages, financial mismanagement and controversial elections. And everybody assumes that all first nations are the same and we all have the same problems. That's not true.

If the minister took the time to come into our communities and talk to our elders, our young people, see how we operate, see what is really needed at the grassroots level, he would see that the proposed legislation before us now would be entirely different and the opposition being voiced today may not be what it is.

We have to ask, why hasn't the federal government learned lessons from the previous times they have tried to amend the Indian Act, or from the Charlottetown Accord? That was rejected by first nations. It was a melting pot approach: every first nation is the same. Everybody has a template, and this First Nations Governance Act is basically that, a template.

When will there be recognition that our first nations government systems are different and that we all progress at different paces? That is what self-determination is all about. If the First Nations Governance Act were to say anything, it should say that first nations have the right of self-determination, the right to freely pursue our own political status and our economic, social, and cultural development period--one paragraph. Leave it to the first nations to determine how they will govern. It is then, and only then, that we will be able to have good governance.

We in British Columbia have been negotiating treaties for over ten years. We have spent considerable time and money in developing models of governance. Some of these chapters have been completed at treaty tables but not implemented because the entire treaty hasn't been accepted. We question the good faith of the federal government in passing legislation on governance while we are negotiating self-government at the treaty tables. It is through the process of negotiation of appropriate models for each first nation where we can elaborate what self-government will mean.

» (1710)

We fully understand the limitations of the treaty process. We may never get treaties in British Columbia, but surely there's a way to take what have been negotiated and turn them into agreements and implement them now, without the entire treaty. This is how things should be done. This is how self-government should be dealt with, on a nation-by-nation basis.

I know in the proposed governance act an order in council can be passed exempting first nations from these sections if they are going to affect negotiations, but you're going to need the consent of your negotiator at your table. But we all know that getting an order in council through the cabinet takes at least six months, and that could be a limitation.

We know and we understand what your terms of reference and mandate are. We know you are going to go ahead and do what you have to do. But we want you to communicate to Parliament, the government of this country, that we are opposed to this legislation.

I am going to talk about some of the issues that are of great concern to our community in relation to this act. And I want to be clear, this is not consultation. Consultation, according to the courts of this land, is that if we raise concerns, every concern is met. That has never been done in this process, and it wll not be done at this committee level.

For a long time the Indian Act has contained terms that aren't ours--for example, “Indian”, “bands”, “reserves”. These aren't our words. They're offensive to us, and we don't want to use them. Yet, again, in this modern legislation, this 2003 legislation, that hasn't been addressed. It's called the First Nations Governance Act, but where in the legislation is the term “first nations” ever used again?

I stood in front of a standing committee, I don't remember exactly when--I've been chief for almost eight years--and I remember travelling to Vancouver and teleconferencing to address this same issue. It's here again, so obviously nobody heard that message. It bears repeating until the importance of what it means to us is understood and implemented.

First nations are not persons. We do not have the capacity of a legal person. We are governments, nations. Our governments predate yours. Our right of self-determination, our right of self-government, is recognized and protected under section 35 of your Constitution.

Why is it that the proposed First Nations Governance Act is not reflective of your Constitution? Why is it so difficult to say that first nations are governments, and as such have the capacity of governments?

There is such an unfounded fear in the provincial and federal governments around us being governments, perceiving that we are taking powers away from you. This is not true.

The federal government has recognized the inherent right of self-government. So why is this issue of a first nation having the legal capacity of a person an issue? It's really a lack of understanding by the governments of who and what we are.

Clause 11 of the First Nations Governance Act requires the council to appoint a person or body of persons to deal with complaints by a resident or a member of the first nation. This is if a council or an employee of the council breaches a code in the exercise of a discretionary power. Noticeably, discretionary power isn't defined, and this could be every single decision of the council. This clause takes away the power of the council, and more importantly the community, to deal with our own internal issues. If somebody has a complaint, they immediately go outside the community to have it dealt with. What kind of community is that? What kind of law is that?

It makes no sense to me that there is no faith. And this is where we go back to that whole paternalism, that we cannot deal with things ourselves.

» (1715)

People need to have a voice in our communities; they need to be heard; they need to have a right of appeal. But we can deal with it in our communities. There is a natural justice applied to a council: people have to be heard; they have to be represented; they have to know the case before them. All those things apply to us.

Finding an impartial person to appoint, or a body of persons who don't know our communities, don't know our processes, don't know our lives, is going to be difficult. We can establish processes in our community for grievances and redresses. And yet we have to do this.

I don't see any other model of government, federal or provincial, where they can't deal with their own problems and their own internal issues. Why are we different? Why is there a different standard of governance imposed on us?

As for the enforcement sections, we appreciate the fact that someone has finally recognized that the small fines and imprisonment weren't working—finally. There are teeth to those laws, but it has to be recognized that there is no parallel system for us to enforce them. Where is the right to have our own justice system? Where is the money going to come from? Where do we find the money to hire an enforcement officer? The RCMP will only enforce those laws that have criminal intent. I know my community can't afford to hire enforcement law, so what good is it? What good is it, really?

Who gets the fines from the tickets? While we can enter into contracts with local provincial courts, who is going to pay them for the administration of justice? I'm sure the fines we're going to generate aren't going to give us enough money to even pay those courts. So you can see that while the minister has proposed a greater increase in fines, that makes it.... How do we implement it? How do we change it, without that whole issue of justice and administration of justice being in our jurisdiction and capacity?

There is one other issue I would like to address; that's in relation to the section that allows councils to delegate their powers to a body. The Indian Act is clear: only a majority of council can make decisions for the community. This legislation says the same thing. And now the act is saying we can delegate those powers. Does it say in there to councils, “You had better make sure you understand your duties as fiduciaries”? The courts have been clear: we are fiduciaries. If we give that responsibility to somebody else, in the end the liability is the council's. That's not in the act, and that's a dangerous provision that I think should be looked at more clearly and that councils should be really aware of.

Recognizing that we have time limitations on an issue as vital as the effective tools of governance, we're not going to address all the issues we have with Bill C-7. But let me tell you this. My community has been giving our community's members financial statements; every two months they receive the audit. Our community has been doing this for over twenty years. We have never been in the red. We have bimonthly meetings where people are informed about what goes on.

We are more than capable of governing ourselves. We don't have the time, the staff, the capacity, the money to sit down to start drafting codes. We sign contracts, we bring lawsuits. All these things the act says we can now do we've been doing for years. We are a highly sophisticated operation, and not one local government—not the province, not the federal government—denies that. And yet we are demeaned in this way through giving us the capacity of a “person”.

The proposed legislation does not even begin to address where we already are and where we want to go in order to be economically self-sufficient. As a first nation, we will continue to assert ourselves and our rights despite any legislation the federal government chooses to enact.

Thank you for listening. I hope you've heard me.

» (1720)

The Chair: Thank you very much for an excellent presentation. I know you've been working at legislation and getting your viewpoint across for many years. Your words are effective, and I know that members are taking notes. I hope some amendments will come because of your words.

We have four minutes each. Who will go first?

Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I want to comment on a couple of areas, but first I want to thank you for being here, Chief.

I know some of this maybe didn't come with a long advance notice, although some did get notices, but my question--and I've asked this in some of the Red Deer meetings we had as well--is were you able to do some consultation with your band members in terms of this Bill C-7? Did you arrive at that by way of band council members together? Or did you get in touch with your membership over a period of some meetings, or a period of some weeks, to get their input on Bill C-7, as to whether they thought it was good, bad, or indifferent?

Chief Judith Sayers: We addressed this, the actual provisions, at our last committee meeting, and that's where I got the comments from. We have also talked about it periodically in reporting to our community the positions of the Assembly of First Nations, which we've supported, in terms of more of the political issues of what's going on. I can't say that we have gone in great depth into the provisions, but certainly we went through a summary of what's contained in the legislation.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I think we'll probably all agree that the Indian Act is not a wonderful piece of legislation. There are lots of problems with it. I'm wondering, then, being agreed to that, would you prefer to be just staying under those unwieldy and problematic provisions of the Indian Act until you have self-government agreements with Canada? What do you prefer? You don't see this Bill C-7 as a transitional thing forward? Or do you prefer to just stay where you're at in terms of the existing Indian Act right now?

Chief Judith Sayers: Bill C-7 may be a transitional thing, but like I said, a lot of the things we've already done out of practice. It's not really giving us anything more than what we already have.

I suggested in my presentation that many of us have negotiated self-government chapters, which would basically be a self-government agreement, and those could be turned into self-governing agreements now. I think it would be very simple to do that at those tables that have that advanced.... We certainly know what it is we need; and a lot of the things we need, the key issues such as education, child welfare, and justice, aren't addressed in here.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Right. Do you think it would be too difficult to shoehorn those things under leadership selection, and the financial management, those administrative things? Could you shoehorn those codes, those things that you've already developed, into Bill C-7 and say, we'll humour the minister? Does that covers it off?

Chief Judith Sayers: I think those codes are very specific. The provisions in Bill C-7 outline what needs to go in there, and I'm assuming that first nations might be able to put things that are related to it. But I think if we went beyond that we could be struck down in a court of law on anything that would exceed the power that's granted in that law, so it's not an answer.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: One of the other issues then is the issue of matrimonial real property for women. That's been brought up by on-reserve and off-reserve women across the country. You would no doubt know a fair bit about that, I would suppose. The JMAC, joint ministerial commission there, had recommended that be dealt with, that it needs to be addressed. Do you share that view? Is that a greater priority than this? Where does that fit? Should that be worked into Bill C-7 in terms of matrimonial real property issues?

» (1725)

Chief Judith Sayers: I think if a first nation had the ability to deal with matrimonial property on reserves, then it could be dealt with that way. It is a critical issue. Many of our women aren't getting the value of their homes. The women and the children leave while the man remains at home. It is a critical issue, and one that needs to be addressed.

If first nations were recognized as having that jurisdiction, we could deal with those things. Valuation of property, how do you value a piece of property on reserve? And that's been one of the hardest issues, because a home may be worth $100,000 off reserve, but on reserve if someone can only afford to pay $50,000, then that's what it's valued at.

Yes, there are some very big issues there.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: It's a concern, but dealt with outside of Bill C-7 or just on your own as a self-government status.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Before we go to Mr. Martin, I should mention that we'll probably have a late supper. There's fruit and cheese and I don't know what else is there, but it's for members and for people in the audience. We can take turns at having a bite. It's not intended to be your supper, so if we do not multiply the fish too many times, there may be enough for everyone. I can't multiply it, I can guarantee you that.

Mr. Martin, four minutes.

Mr. Pat Martin: I think only a minister can do that, Mr. Chair, loaves and fishes--maybe.

The Chair: You never miss a chance, do you?

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you, Chief Sayers, for a very interesting brief.

I won't get too involved with the technical aspects of the bill. I'm very satisfied you've made the point that you're not satisfied with the issues being addressed in Bill C-7. If there were genuine consultations, the people in your community would have made a much different list from the one being imposed on you now. Is that accurate?

Chief Judith Sayers: That's correct.

Mr. Pat Martin: I would like to talk about money. I think, and the NDP believes, that Bill C-7 finds its origins in a very manufactured misconception that most aboriginal communities are either corrupt or mismanaged. You can thank three of the people in this room for that misconception. The Canadian Alliance systematically made that case for two years straight in the House of Commons leading up to Bill C-7. They would take isolated incidents of mismanagement in communities and try to thread them all together into a common theme that you're all a bunch of crooks and that you're incompetent.

The Chair: I have to interject. This committee has a code, too. We're not here primarily as Liberals, Alliance, NDP, or Bloc. I would appreciate it if we don't start the attacks. It's going well. We're doing our fourth week. We have five more. I don't want this committee to turn into a battle. So I would appreciate very much if members would benefit from the expertise of our witnesses and keep away from the partisan stuff. If we don't, I'll rule it out of order.

Mr. Pat Martin: I only raised it by way of background. The witness mentioned that the financial mismanagement accusations were a little bit much, because out of 633 first nations, 96% of them filed their audits on time and kept their records in the black.

I'll move on from that. I want to ask you about the funding issue. The military has 50,000 people, and their funding was just raised by $2.5 billion. First nations get $7 billion for one million people, which covers schools, health care, and roads for their 600 communities. Do you want to comment on the basic needs issues in your communities that should have been addressed in Bill C-7 rather than the accounting details?

Chief Judith Sayers: I think that every first nation community is underfunded. A large part of that $7 billion goes into the bureaucracy of Indian Affairs. My community operates on less than $1 million every year, and with that we have to provide all the infrastructure, administration, staff, and services. I like to describe the way we do business as pittance management.

Every single agreement we sign with the federal government under the financial transfer agreements is sick. Our accountants tell us that we pay three to five times more than any other person getting an audit, because of the rigorous, onerous provisions of the agreements we have to sign. We have to have separate bank accounts for this and separate bank accounts for that. Targeted funds have to be spent on this, and if we don't, we have to pay it back. We are probably more over-regulated than anyone in this country.

» (1730)

Mr. Pat Martin: That's actually what the Auditor General of Canada just finished saying.

Chief Judith Sayers: Definitely.

Mr. Pat Martin: I'm probably out of time.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

On that issue, the message has been shared with this committee many times. Although we won't improve that in Bill C-7, you can be assured that it will be brought back, and we will deal with it. You may get funding from one department and have to report to three. That was news to me. It shouldn't be, but I don't know everything. That point has been made clear, and we will pursue that.

Chief Judith Sayers: I wanted to let you know that we just signed a contribution agreement for community energy funding planning, and a lot of the provisions that are in Bill C-7 are in that. We had to have redress and grievance. We had to do all the stuff that's contained in here. So this is being implemented even before it has been passed.

The Chair: Mr. Laliberte, four minutes.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Thank you, Chief, for enlightening us on your perspective and involvement with administering the affairs of your band.

I just want to point to part 2 of the act, where the legal capacity and the definition of the band is that it has the legal capacity and rights, powers, and privileges of a natural person. Now, I want to touch on that, because you also commented that this is called a First Nations Governance Act. But in between the context of the first nations, you are a band of a nation. This definition of nations is not being challenged in this act. It's 2003. The Constitution of Canada recognizes the Inuit, the Métis, and the first nations of Canada. But first nations is a bracketed term. It's a basket of nations. Maybe it's time we opened the basket and showed who the actual first nations of Canada are.

Now, if you apply that to this legal capacity and the band is a natural person, it has no reference to nationhood, it has no reference to government, as you are referring to us. Is that something this committee should be addressing, the definition of first nations, as to who the true first nations of Canada are? Should we look at clause 15 and maybe look at an amendment beyond the natural person, maybe recognized as government or a nation, so that the bands are part of nations?

Chief Judith Sayers: I think that's exactly what we're saying. Band is very much the Indian Act terminology. That comes from the late 1800s. It was not our term. If we could be properly reflected as nations, having the power of government like anybody else does, that would be less offensive than this.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: In the existing Indian Act, in the legal parameters of your administration, I guess, with the government and its relations, do you see amendments here? The Indian Act created the bands. Now this act uses the term “first nations”. If you engage with the nations and the uniqueness of each individual nation right across the country, there's a number. Maybe for the record, you would pronounce your nation. I missed the last presentation, the people from Cheam. There is a need for us to pronounce these nations for the records of these proceedings, and maybe I'll ask you to do that.

Chief Judith Sayers: It's Hupacasath, and we're part of the Nuu-chah-nulth Nation.

» (1735)

Mr. Rick Laliberte: And if that capacity as a nation were designed in a governance structure.... I guess that's what you're here to tell us, that we should be respecting the nations as entities and creating a governance process that respects the traditional and also the modern-day context of administrative tools.

Chief Judith Sayers: Yes, we're saying that under section 35 of the Constitution our right of self-government is already part of the fabric of this country and it should be properly reflected--not a band, not a person, a self-governing nation.

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

Chief Judith Sayers: Thank you.

The Chair: It was very helpful and it will continue to be very helpful.

I'd like to know if Max Stelmacker is in the audience. I'm asking if Kim Recalma-Clutesi is in the audience and I'm asking if Chief John Smith is in the audience.

That will bring us to the completion of today, but I will ask if there is anyone in the audience who is scheduled to present tomorrow morning who would like to present today. Do it if you feel comfortable doing it only.

We will do an exercise we did at other places that we would probably be doing tomorrow. If there are any members in attendance who wish to make a two-minute comment without questions from members, any person who is not presenting or has not presented, we invite you to the table at this time.

Please come forward. First we will ask you to give your name for the record. And we will be as strict with your two minutes as we have been with the others.

Please proceed.

Mr. Cliff Turner (As Individual):

My name is Cliff Turner. I work for a number of the first nations bands as a building inspector and a public health inspector. I have seen terrible living conditions on the reserves. I am very sympathetic to the first nations people based on what I've seen.

I've also seen a lot of corruption and mismanagement of resources. In some bands it's almost to the point where whoever gets their hands on the money first gets to keep it. So I'm strongly in favour of Bill C-7.

That being said, I think the first nations, if they're going to have self-government, and if they're being promised large settlements under treaty negotiations and that sort of thing, then there is an obligation to meet those expectations that have been created. I think a lot of people who work in the “Indian industry” actually create unrealistic expectations. Human rights cannot be distributed equally if they're going to be distributed on the basis of race. You cannot give special rights to one race without taking something from another race.

That's basically my presentation.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We're pleased to welcome to the table, from the Qualicum First Nation, Chief Councillor Kim Recalma-Clutesi, and I see you are assisted by Trish Cassidy. We have 30 minutes together. We'll invite you to make your presentation, and if you allow us some time, it will be followed by questions from the members.

Please proceed.

Ms. Kim Recalma-Clutesi (Chief Councillor, Qualicum First Nation): Thank you.

First, I'd like to thank you very much for the opportunity to be here. I'm glad I'm not on my normal Bakwam time, Indian time, and I'm able to accommodate you in these early moments.

My name is O'gwi'low'gwi, and I'm the daughter of the late hereditary chief from the area from which I come, and more recently, the elected chief of Qualicum. I sit here with Patricia Cassidy, counsel for the Qualicum First Nation.

My presentation is not going to be a legal presentation or an analysis of the situation, but a reflection on and reminder of what the needs are for small bands, the capacity of small bands, the situations we find ourselves in as a result of the Indian Act system, and the situation we'll find ourselves in if we don't forthwith remedy and sort out the situation we are in, minus proper capacity.

As it sits today, I have recently had the dubious honour of replacing the only non-aboriginal, non-band-member chief to hold a seat in British Columbia for the last six years.

The Indian Act has provisions as it stands right now--with flaws--which is why it is a double-edged sword to have this governance act introduced at this time. Minister Irwin presented similar changes to the Indian Act that would address these situations.

As it stands today, a Chinese immigrant who is five years old can be chief of an Indian reserve in Canada. My dog could be as well, because I'm not sure if the actual designation of “human being” is part of the regulation.

As it stands now there are grave flaws in the Indian Act that predate the tenure of these government systems, and they also are highly insulting to the governance systems from whence we came.

The governance act itself is a very poor substitution for the inherent right to self-government that we all strive toward in our communities. It does not give a strong linkage for bands such as ours who are small, without the capacity, without the infrastructure to implement. It does not give me a strong linkage to be able to practise inherent customary laws, as it stands. Because we do not have a customary law system now for elections, we would have to adopt the policies and regulations as they stand within the governance act. And that, gentlemen, is unacceptable.

As well, it's unacceptable in regard to the issues around accountability, as it stands. I'll point this out for these reasons.

I've worked very hard and tirelessly to ensure the situations I have had to live through in my area not be left as just a thorn, but can be a lesson and a learning tool to show how crazy these systems actually can become. It is the goodwill and absolute inherent reasoning among our people that has kept them as intact as they have been, because the systems are so flawed.

I daresay that this governance system that is being introduced at this time will not take care of the issues around transparency and accountability, because one key component is missing. Most of us understand that the Treasury Board itself is how we as the public address the accountability of Indian Affairs. But there is one key point I'd like to mention. We take a lot of political heat in our communities, a lot, for the massive amount of money that is spent in our name. Very little of it comes to the people. We have not, in this act, one ounce of accountability toward our people from the Department of Indian Affairs. That is shameful, and it's what has to be corrected at this time. If we are to be subjected to such accountability to our people--and I welcome that--I say we must also have a say in the same kind of accountability for the dollars that are received in our name, which we receive criticism for.

» (1740)

My two grave concerns are around the lack of regulations in the actual electoral system as it stands today. If we are to throw out this entire process, then I know that I will be struggling, as will other bands, with the issue of who actually represents the people. It is not a good situation. Communities can be held to ransom as a result of the complicity with Indian Affairs as well.

I want to speak more to my concerns, rather than give you a legal interpretation. As a small band, I lack day-to-day legal counsel and the kind of capacity that larger bands have. We will not have the capacity at the end of the day to enact this bill. We won't have the resources, the infrastructure, and the staff to do that. We have two and a half people who run the entire band. They administer welfare, and for the most part they employ most of the people. They administer education, and they counsel people. They provide all of the day-to-day essential services. With the way the systems are offered and laid out, we will not have the capacity to actually enforce this and work it through.

That's my presentation.

I thank you for the opportunity to speak earlier. It means that for the first time in many weeks I may get home to my family at a reasonable time.

I invite your questions.

» (1745)

The Chair: In order to accommodate you so that you can be home with your family, I will urge my colleagues to ask short questions.

Ms. Kim Recalma-Clutesi: Oh no, I like to talk.

The Chair: I like the short questions because it's you I want to hear.

Mr. Elley.

Mr. Reed Elley: Thank you very much.

I really appreciate you coming and sharing with us, Chief.

You made a very practical suggestion and a very important point. You do have to deal with this whole business of $6 billion or $7 billion a year being spent by INAC. Where does this money go? It's not just at the band level that some people may have problems. It's with this huge amount of money that never comes to bands, that's eaten up in the Indian industry, if we may call it that, and the bureaucracy of INAC. It never really gets to the people who really need it.

I think you're quite right that this legislation is very flawed, in that it does not address that problem of accountability. If accountability is going to take place throughout the whole system, so to speak, then it must start at the top. There's no question about that. So I want to commend you for bringing up that point. I think it was a very legitimate and good point for you to make.

Do you think that moving in the direction the government has proposed is going to help you and your governance structure at the end of the day? You've made the point that you're a small band, and I think this is a good point to make. There is a problem with capacity, isn't there? Could you answer that question in view of the fact that you're a small band?

Ms. Kim Recalma-Clutesi: Unfortunately, I'm the author of a policy that actually set all of this in motion with Minister Nault a little while back, so I'm feeling quite guilty about how it has been interpreted.

This will be a burden. I won't have the capacity to actually work with this governance. It will add another level of government, which I will not be able to manage.

I need the freedom to be able to work within my customary laws and to have a ward system of election that will represent families or clans and districts of people. I need to have structures that are similar to our own, such as Kweek, Eagle Sentinels, who would have an advisory capacity and be able to oversee things. The dispute resolution mechanisms would be built right into those systems. They would not be separated into little compartments so that I constantly need to have a lawyer standing by to work with me.

In a small band I lack the capacity to even entertain this, so I fear that it would be imposed on us. Because of the way it is laid out, if I cannot enact the systems myself, they will be imposed on us using a template that has nothing to do with my customary laws or culture or my inherent rights.

» (1750)

Mr. Reed Elley: Would you have any sense of how many small bands across Canada are in the same position as yours? Are you hearing from other people?

Ms. Kim Recalma-Clutesi: British Columbia has probably more small bands than any other part of the country, because in British Columbia we have the most diversification. There are more language groups and more linguistic groups in British Columbia than any other part of North America combined. The majority of the small bands are here.

And we have the small bands because there was a commitment at the time when the reserves were gazetted that the acreage would be far less than in the prairies, because of our tendency to extract the resources from the land and the sea, rather than be encouraged to be agriculturalists at the time. So our reserves are small in land base and small in population.

I would say that out of the better than 200 bands, we have over 50 that sit in my kind of situation.

Mr. Reed Elley: Okay, thank you.

The Chair: I won't use up some of your time, but I can clear up some of the questions you asked. I think it would be helpful for everybody, myself included.

Across the nation, there are 146 bands under 100 persons. Of bands of 100 to 249, there are 130; of bands of 250 to 499, there are 120. From 500 to 999, there are 130; from 1,000 to 1,999, there are 69; and there are 32 of over 2,000. It's interesting.

Ms. Kim Recalma-Clutesi: In B.C. we have perhaps about 45% that are under 250, which is a small capacity.

The Chair: The source is the DIAND Indian Register, 2000.

Mr. Elley, I think I took some of your time.

Mr. Reed Elley: I appreciate your clarifying that, Mr. Chair, because I think this is a very important point in terms of our looking at how something like this would actually work. If the consultation process had been more thorough and our aboriginal people had had the opportunity to say some of these things at a certain level—and I don't just mean chiefs and councils, but everybody—maybe this kind of act would not have come out the way it has.

Ms. Kim Recalma-Clutesi: May I add a comment to what he said? It's really important.

What you've said is important and significant. Because the consultation has actually taken place at many different levels with the royal commission as well, the body of knowledge and the body of investigative information is actually available in there. We did need present negotiations and consultation, but it should have been based on the premise of the data gathered during that last royal commission.

It's vitally important that consultation take place before this is imposed. I'm astounded that a template is being forced on me once again as I'm trying to rebuild a small band that is debt-ridden, because somebody who didn't even have citizenship and didn't even have a legal capacity or tie to the land was able to destroy it in the manner it was done.

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. Kim Recalma-Clutesi: So I have this as well.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Martin, you have five minutes.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you for making the point very clearly that most first nations communities are fully occupied with meeting the basic needs of their community, be it in health or education or housing. Then what time they have left is occupied with meeting the already onerous tests that you have to meet on a day-to-day basis.

The Auditor General just came to the aboriginal affairs committee recently and pointed out that the first nations community has to fill out 168 separate forms and documents every year—three or four a week—just to keep the revenue stream coming. With a staff of two and a half, I can fully relate to.... If you're going to get a whole new regime imposed on you, how, even if you wanted to meet the two-year deadline, could you possibly do it?

My question is this. We're still reeling with the impact of Bill C-31, I guess. Brian Mulroney vowed at that time, “If we get Bill C-31, no community will suffer financial hardship as a result of the new people in its membership.” How do you see the government imposing something nobody wants on 633 communities who couldn't cooperate even if they wanted to? Can you speak to that with what time we have?

» (1755)

Ms. Kim Recalma-Clutesi: It happened in Bill C-31 as well. We don't have the capacity to do what the government's asking of us, but we also don't have the time to wait to have some of the colonial issues and the colonial statutes that are in the body of legislation called the Indian Act stay intact as well.

How do we not? That's the problem. If I were to choose between this act and staying as we are today, it would be a lot of soul-searching because it would be a heavy coin flip to see what we can afford to do. We have to move forward.

The governance act as it is.... And this is why I'm glad that this consultation process is taking place, because I'm hoping you hear that it is imperative that some of the really terrible parts of the Indian Act have to be addressed at this moment in time. But they should not be addressed as a template imposed upon the rest of the country, because that's no different from enacting the Indian Act in the first place.

Mr. Pat Martin: Would it be safe to say then that it would be a good thing if the minister could back up for six months and shelve Bill C-7, and in the next session of Parliament, when we come back after the summer break, reintroduce it, or embark on a true consultation that might implement some of the recommendations of the Royal Commission of Aboriginal Peoples, for instance? Maybe the government should take one step back and heal some of the terrible animosity that has been generated by this bill and move forward with something better. Do you think that would be a logical thing to do?

Ms. Kim Recalma-Clutesi: It would be a logical thing to do. The consultation has to take place before this is imposed. We're all grown-ups.

Mr. Pat Martin: One thing I noted is that there was no funding available to you at all to prepare this brief even to come here today, yet if you wanted to do a Wal-Mart cheer, rah-rah session in your community, they would give you $5,000 to have INAC come there and talk on Bill C-7.

The Chair: Just a moment. No witness has been given any money to prepare any documents to present to us.

Mr. Pat Martin: That's my point.

The Chair: Nobody. No money.

Mr. Pat Martin: No, but there was money available to have people come to your community about the bill and sell it.

The Chair: You said “to come to present here”. No one--

Mr. Pat Martin: No, for INAC people to come to her home community.

The Chair: You said it's for your presentation here. So just be careful.

Mr. Pat Martin: There was no money, but for the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, was there not money made available so people could present a brief on these complex issues and make representation with some assistance, with some help?

Ms. Kim Recalma-Clutesi: Actually, the one thing I do want to say is that I'm a real believer in democracy. I'm a real believer that if a wrong has been perpetrated on the people, we have systems such as this to be able to redress. I'm a real believer in each and every one of you having the ability to hear what has been presented to you over the last time. I have great faith. I also ask that you present this to the minister in a non-partisan way that would in fact carry the wishes, the aspirations, and the difficulties we all face.

It's a hard enough situation to have me caught in the middle of shuffling back and forth. I'm not a friend in particular of any of the governments that have enacted any of these areas, but I choose to participate in some of them in order to make sure that these provisions are always carefully thought out. I think we both have a job to do. I'm a cheerleader for a little bit of social justice right now. And I'm not a paid cheerleader.

The Chair: Thank you very much. I've allowed for the time I interrupted, so it's over the five minutes.

I assure you that when we get back to Ottawa and do the clause-by-clause a good amount of time will be spent on the small communities and the problems you've brought to our attention.

Mr. Hubbard, please.

¼ (1800)

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Chief, I'm very impressed with your presentation and the candour you've had with us. However, it is difficult when you look at a bill that's been used for 125 or more years, that was set in time in terms of most of the terminologies and the situations. A lot of changes have happened since the 1870s. Of course we have to look forward, but as legislators we always have great difficulty in terms of the issue of consultation.

Our committee, as the chair has said so often, is here to review Bill C-7 with the people of the various first nations across this country, and I guess anyone who wants to come before the committee. That is what we've been mandated to do, and we're going back to Parliament to give an answer to the House in terms of what we've heard and what amendments are suggested.

I think it is part of the bill, in terms of small communities, that they can work together to develop codes. I'm not sure if that would work, but it is a possibility that one or more groups that didn't have all the wherewithal themselves could collectively work together to develop arrangements specific to their own needs, but also, in general terms, in terms of what may work in one or more places. Could that be a possibility with some of the smaller first nations here in British Columbia?

Ms. Kim Recalma-Clutesi: It's a dream. It is a possibility in some areas, but you have to bear in mind that on Vancouver Island alone there are three separate linguistic groupings and there are 15 languages on this tiny little island, representing maybe 20,000 aboriginal people and about 50 bands.

Tribal organizations can at times operate in that capacity, and have done so for some of them, but you have to understand that the tribal affiliations really have a different mandate when it comes to the governance of their own people. They do not want to have imposed on them the other clans or the other neighbours. We're separated. It's like saying to the people of Ireland, “Could you get together, Catholics and Protestants, for the moment and develop your governance code?”

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Your relationships are much better.

Ms. Kim Recalma-Clutesi: I don't know sometimes.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: We've seen that country for the last 200 or 300 years....

Ms. Kim Recalma-Clutesi: So thank you for the suggestion. It is a valid and a good one, but it's sometimes difficult to achieve.

The Chair: Try my community, where we have four school boards: French Catholic, French public, English Catholic, English public--

Ms. Kim Recalma-Clutesi: Then you know what it's like for us on the island.

The Chair: --but they do have transportation together. You made a good point.

I apologize, Mr. Hubbard. Carry on.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Mr. Chair, we've also had presentations and ideas about ombudsmen. We've talked about redress in the bill. With redress of course there have been criticisms, especially in small communities, that the chief doesn't have that many people to choose from in terms of looking at a person for redress for his people.

Would an ombudsman at a higher level be more acceptable or more workable in terms of small communities?

Ms. Kim Recalma-Clutesi: I believe that an ombudsman, if it were an aboriginal person who was well versed in the customary laws of the people of that tradition, could operate out of a tribal council. That would work. But a general ombudsman, no, because you're dealing with some very difficult situations if people are going to be adopting customary rules because there will be different standards in each of the areas. So you'd need to have somebody who would understand those standards, and Westminster models simply don't cut it to understand many of those customary standards.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Finally, in terms of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is another aspect we try to deal with, what is your impression on the change that would come about as a result of this bill?

Ms. Kim Recalma-Clutesi: Boy, that's a big one.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Or is that too specific?

Ms. Kim Recalma-Clutesi: It's really specific, and, as you see, I have no legal documents in front of me.

Primarily, I think we have to be extremely cautious about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I sit here today as a female chief, but in my customary system I am never able to be a chief. In fact, my partner is a chief and reminds me that he is the hereditary chief, as did my late father, and that I am in an administrative capacity. We have to be extremely careful with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the kinds of rights it would impose, because it would infringe on those things that our maker gave to us that we hold very dearly.

¼ (1805)

The Chair: Thank you very much. There's still some time, so if you wish to make closing remarks, or if your colleague wishes to add something, the time is yours. There are six minutes left.

We can do a two-minute round, but then there won't be time for closing remarks. If you have a question, we'll go around.

Do you want a round and no closing remarks?

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I have a one-minute question, actually.

The Chair: Then it will be a one-minute round.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: To follow up on Mr. Hubbard's question, this Bill C-7 would actually take and place women in equality, if you will, supposedly, but that also makes for the possibility then, as you say, for custom, culture, and so on, to trump the Canadian Human Rights Act. So was that what you were getting at by saying that, in effect, this doesn't even go far enough then, Bill C-7?

Ms. Kim Recalma-Clutesi: No, I don't think Bill C-7 goes far enough, because we have to be extremely careful about anything that is going to.... The Constitution is extremely clear about protecting those inherent rights, and they actually are very clear about even protecting the systems that revolve around those rights and those things that came to us. It is vitally important that Bill C-7 go further to protect those inherent rights that speak to those principles.

It doesn't mean in any way, shape, or form that by recognizing those inherent rights it muzzles people like me. It means that I'm extremely careful about where I sit within my customary places. It doesn't go far enough.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Martin, one minute.

Mr. Pat Martin: Building on the point that you said you simply won't have the ability to implement the changes and the new codes within the two-year timeframe, what do you think will happen after two years? How do you see that unfolding to its logical conclusion?

Ms. Kim Recalma-Clutesi: I see a modern-day implementation of the 1876 version of the Indian Act on my people. That's why it is imperative that changes need to be made here, or perhaps a postponement in its enactment needs to happen in order for the changes to take place. I can't see living with a modern implementation of an old colonial system.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

The Liberals have decided to give you their minute, so you have three minutes for closing remarks.

Ms. Kim Recalma-Clutesi: Does that suggest that I'm a partisan person?

¼ (1810)

The Chair: No.

Ms. Kim Recalma-Clutesi: We're not allowed to do that today. I've already bought mine, thank you.

I'd like first of all to thank you very much for being part of this system and for inviting each and every one of us to do this. I wanted to use my time to show personal experience rather than a legal interpretation, because I have many learned colleagues who have given you that perspective.

What we lack today is a fundamental understanding of what life is like on an Indian reserve as a result of the enactment of the Indian Act a hundred and some-odd years ago. We lack in our communities the ability to do anything but crisis management. We lack the capacity to build and to dream and to have hope that our children will go beyond a 25% graduation rate, that our suicide rates will lower, that we will have full participation in Canadian society, and that we will one day even participate fully in employment.

Most of all, I have a real dream that you would understand at some point the big issues, and that when I listen to you in the House of Commons at some time, maybe these consultations will be reflected when I am listening to your deliberations, and I'll understand, when you're speaking of the vast amounts of money that are spent, that we charge the Treasury Board at some time with making sure the systems of accountability are in place for the things we actually own as a people.

Allow us the possibility to dream, to be adults, and I invite you all to exercise your fiduciary obligation, your obligation to act according to what our wishes are, in consultation. I haven't heard anybody saying “without prejudice” as they walk in the door here, but we're always very nervous about chatting, because “howdy doodies” often turn into a formal consultation that shifts our lives dramatically.

I am aware of the great weight we carry for our great-grandchildren today in making a decision so profound. I wonder whether or not my little ones will have the opportunity to sit before you at some time and be able to say “Yes, you know, that did actually work, and we are a better people for it.” I implore you to take these deliberations very seriously. Remember that close to half the bands sit in the situation we do here and lack the capacity to even initiate implementation of this bill at some point.

I also ask you not to sweep it away. There are parts of the Indian Act now that this proposed act covers that need very speedy revision, or else Saddam Hussein may be one of our chiefs here, if he's looking for a country in exile. It's a possibility. We have to look at the serious implications of not doing something.

I'm glad it's not my choice.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I now I invite to the table, from the Tlowitsis First Nation, Chief John Smith.

Chief, welcome. We have 30 minutes together. We invite you to make your presentation, which will be followed by questions by members if you allow us some time.

Chief John M. Smith (Tlowitsis First Nation): Thank you.

Because of the limitation on time, I'm not going to bother with too many preliminary remarks.

The preamble to Bill C-7 contains a reference to broadly held Euro-Canadian values, such as representative democracy, regular elections, accountability, and transparency. However, it makes no mention of the desire of first nations to preserve values such as consensus decision-making, community harmony, or unique traditional practices and values by continuing to exercise our own governing authority.

The preamble also makes reference to Canada's policy recognizing the inherent right of self-government as an aboriginal right and providing for the negotiation of self-government. Regrettably, the preamble does not create an enforceable statutory duty for the Crown. Further, neither the preamble nor the bill contains a reference to a non-derogation clause for the protection of the inherent right of self-government. Therefore, Canada should include a non-derogation clause and a commitment to negotiate self-government agreements and treaties in the enforcement clause of Bill C-7.

Interestingly, paragraph 3(c) proposes to enable bands to design and implement their own regimes. However, in the bill itself there is no enforceable commitment to ensure we can do that. Instead, there are several requirements that we must include in those rules Canadian values. Worse, if first nations decide not to do so, then the bill provides for the imposition of default rules, presumably designed by the minister or his agents. This obvious double standard aside, it seems coercive at best for the bill to require the inclusion of Canadian government requirements within aboriginal self-government rules. This is especially so if the only other choice is acceptance of the default rules developed by the Canadian government.

To summarize, the preamble and purposes clause of the bill provide a reference to some admirable principles of government that first nations support--for instance, the recognition of the inherent right of self-government and the negotiation of treaties. However, the bill fails to provide a sufficient enforceable commitment by the Crown to ensure the achievement of these goals.

Conversely, the Crown has included comprehensive enforcement clauses requiring first nations to design and adopt codes for the selection of leaders, administration, accountability, and financial management. Indeed, clauses 4 to 8 specifically state that the band codes must include a list of specific rules regarding leadership and the management of our affairs. Disturbingly, if first nations are unable to design and adopt these measures within a timeframe determined by the bill, a default set of rules will be forced upon them.

Several of the other first nations that are present, along with our National Vice-Chief Satsan, will be speaking to specific concerns regarding these clauses. Therefore, I will conclude my discussion of this portion of the bill by stating that I share their concerns and support their recommendations.

I would now like to focus on the restrictions placed on custom bands by the bill. We can replace the word “custom” with “hereditary”, which is what we choose to call ours. I'd also like to comment on the minister's failure to meet his responsibilities and the unreasonable expectations this process has raised within our nation.

Specifically, the bill states in clause 31 that the Governor in Council may make regulations regarding the adoption of band codes as required by clause 4, including procedures for the holding of votes. It is unclear what those regulations might entail or the extent to which they may infringe on our rights. However, at a minimum, the requirement that our customary rules must be in accordance with those regulations is at best paternalistic colonialism and at worst an unjustified infringement on our right to self-determination and the preservation of our traditions and values.

Even more disturbing is the requirement in subclause 32(2) that bands must establish an election appeal process to be heard by the minister. This assertion would surely be objectionable to any other Canadian form of government. We are unaware of a leadership selection process that is open to this type of ministerial review.

¼ (1815)

We must ask at this time why the minister is seeking this form of power. If the Crown is serious regarding the goals of the bill, especially enabling bands to respond effectively to their particular needs and aspirations while avoiding defining the nature and the scope of the right of self-government, it may be reasonable to ask how any appeal heard by non-aboriginal ministers unfamiliar with the culture and community of values of the nation would provide greater legitimacy than the internal review designed by the community itself. It may also be reasonable to ask how yet another level of bureaucracy and control might improve the efficiency of band governance and administration.

Equally important to the Tlowitsis First Nation is the minister's and his administrators' inability to fulfill their obligations to assist us with re-establishing a geographically central community. Consultation with and provision of programs and service to our citizens is unreasonably complicated because of the diaspora our nation has experienced.

Implicit in the promises made by the bill and the minister's officials during the consultation process, of which I will speak in a minute, has been that bands will be able to respond more effectively to citizens' needs through improved administration, transparency, and accountability. These Pollyanna proposals for addressing the significant economic and bureaucratic barriers we face in meeting the needs of our citizens are simplistic at best and equivocal in fact.

Admittedly, it is beyond the scope of this bill and your committee to address the re-establishment of displaced first nations communities. It is, however, the duty of the minister who has proposed this legislation to ensure he is not raising unreasonable expectations among our citizens by suggesting that the governance bill will be a panacea for systematic barriers that continue to exclude our people from full participation in the Canadian mainstream and Canadian dreams.

In conclusion, let me say that we recognized early in this process that the government was building a case to prove they have consulted with first nations regarding the proposed governance bill. Regrettably, they have spent more time on public relations than on real consultation with first nations in general and specifically with Tlowitsis.

During the preliminary round of meetings we were not consulted on an individual nation basis; rather, the Crown conducted regional meetings with self-identified individual aboriginals. Admittedly, the Joint Ministerial Advisory Committee and the parliamentary select standing committee have met with several umbrella aboriginal organizations, or If they haven't, they will; however, this does not meet the standard of consultation for a justification of the infringements of our right to traditional government.

We believe Bill C-7 permits the minister or his agents to interfere in the affairs of our nation and as such constitutes an infringement of our right to self-government. As such, if the bill is passed in its present form, we believe it will invoke the justification and analysis developed in the Sparrow and Delgamuukw cases and recently refined in the Haida and Taku decisions. Canada has a well-documented history of infringing on aboriginal peoples' rights and interests and imposing their interests and regulations upon self-governing aboriginals despite their protests. Bill C-7 supports the continuation of the legacy of domination by granting the minister greater powers of control over our affairs than the current draconian Indian Act.

Please find attached wording to effect the suggested changes to the wording in the bill contained in the presentation, of which some copies were provided for you.

I thank you for your time and attention to this matter. We have cut it down from nine pages, so we weren't quite sure how long it would take.

¼ (1820)

The Chair: You did really well. We have lots of time together, so there will be questions, and you will also have an opportunity to make closing remarks.

I thought you would do it, but I should have asked you to introduce your colleagues for the record.

Chief John Smith: We could still do that.

This is one of my councillors, Tom Smith. He's been on my council for twenty years. And there's our analyst, Ken Smith. He's not related, but luckily he has the same name.

The Chair: That's great.

We're going to start with a five-minute round.

Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Thank you very much, Chief Smith.

How big is your band in terms of the numbers of members?

Chief John Smith: It's 342, I think.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Okay, 342. Is it all in one location, on one geographic site?

Chief John Smith: No. That's why I mentioned that we didn't have a central community. In fact, on the reserves we do have, which are very small, we don't have any population—no identified population.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Okay. So your population is really dispersed in towns and urban centres?

Chief John Smith: It's all over Canada, actually.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: All over Canada--I see.

You made the point as well about hereditary chiefs. Is that something, then...? You don't have elections, so do you have a periodic opportunity for the diaspora—I think that was the term you used—to indicate their continuing affirmation of the hereditary chief custom approach?

Chief John Smith: Yes. We have a harder crowd to please, because we have to please and satisfy our elder women—what do they call them?—the heads of the clans, and our own family. And they're tougher to please than any—

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Yes. So they are the ones who affirm. On an individual basis, do members have a chance to affirm, or...?

Chief John Smith: They can always go.... They contact us, and—

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: They go to the clan mother or whoever there.

Chief John Smith: Yes.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I guess my question, in a little follow-up from that, then, would be this. Admittedly, over the centuries we've had some development and progress—I guess we're probably allowed to call it that—moving from, for example, a feudal society to a monarchy, and kings and so on no longer govern in that way. Would you be of the view that there's a possibility over time—let's say 30 years from now, when you're 90 years old or whatever—that there might be a possibility of a move to a “one member, one vote” Euro-style approach to your governance issues, to leadership?

¼ (1825)

Chief John Smith: Well, we speak about it in terms of the treaties we're negotiating now, but we insist that it will be something we design as a community, where the people will have some form of election process where they would be represented differently, in a new government that we will design from the treaty.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: If they would choose to, themselves. Okay.

Chief John Smith: Yes. At the same time, we also want it that, if they do choose this, and all of a sudden the next generation says no, this is no good, we'll go back to what it was before. They should have that freedom as well.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Right, exactly.

Somebody can correct me on this, but I thought there was some kind of provision or possibility in Bill C-7 for that. I'll have to read the fine print on it.

So would you see this bill as far too rigid or inflexible to allow you to move some of your codes and bylaws and so on into it and therefore meet the conditions of Bill C-7?

Chief John Smith: If you were in your own community, it would make it a little easier, but not the way our situation is, where—

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: You're so dispersed.

Chief John Smith: —there are questions like how do you get these people, and what are the numbers accepted to make it a fair and reasonable decision?

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Exactly.

Chief John Smith: Right now we can't do that, not without spending an incredible pile of money so you can have people attend these meetings to discuss these very matters you're speaking of.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Right. So in your case, because there's a diaspora, as you say, it's very difficult to even conceive of having to put into place some of these codes along the financial and leadership selection lines, because you have a little different approach on it presently; it's really an odd fit for your particular current situation.

Chief John Smith: It is. The requirements the Indian Act has—in other terms, never mind the leadership part—make it very difficult for us to provide those services to our membership. Through education we've been able to do it, because they just give us a bit of money to do it.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: So you'd rather struggle under the present Indian Act, rather than go to Bill C-7?

Chief John Smith: No. I'd rather have the treaty that—

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Neither one--get rid of them, the sooner the better.

Thank you very much.

The Chair: Mr. Martin, you have five minutes.

Mr. Pat Martin: The first issue you raised, Chief Smith, is the “no non-derogation clause” in this bill. I guess it's fair to ask, if the government isn't planning to infringe on rights or the current treaty relationship, why would they specifically avoid having a non-derogation clause? Can you speak to what your thoughts were when you noticed, or when it was brought to your attention, that there's no non-derogation clause in this bill?

Chief John Smith:

That will be dealt with in a longer, more extensive, and more precise way with Chief Satsan tomorrow, probably.

We're concerned because we do insist that we want to practise our self-governing ways, in terms of the hereditary system and the clan mothers. Somehow the federal government, through its ministers, made all kinds of impositions on us with different things like residential schools, the potlatch act, and all those things that have created all kinds of problems.

In 1969 there was the threat of the white paper, which was very much in the way of destroying us or taking over. With all these things we've talked about now, there's a little more openness to talk about them, but that's still not good enough. It needs to be protected.

Mr. Pat Martin: That's fair enough. Actually, many witnesses have drawn the connection between what they're seeing in Bill C-7 to the white paper of 1969, as if 30 years later they're still trying to conclude the issues that were in the white paper.

Where, geographically, is the land base that you represent?

Chief John Smith: It's on the northern shore of Vancouver Island. It's in the Johnstone Strait between Chelsey Bay and Beaver Cove or Alert Bay.

Mr. Pat Martin: Okay. I have an idea.

I'd ask you to give us your thoughts too on the dollar figure of the consultation process that people have been so critical of that cost $10 million. It came right out of the A-base spending budget of INAC. To implement these changes nobody seems to want and force them down people's throats, they're budgeting $123 million.

We've heard from previous witnesses that especially in a small community they might not have the time or resources to actually implement these changes. First of all, do you think that if these changes are forced on you by the default codes you'll be able to achieve them within a reasonable time? Where will the funding come from? Do you think that figure is realistic?

¼ (1830)

Chief John Smith: I'm not sure how they would even divvy it up, because we have big tribes and little tribes. In fact one of our groups has 22 people, but they're faced with the same consequences. They might not have the money to govern, to do the things they need to do for their people. When you know you only have so much, you can only spend so much. We're always faced with that problem.

The last meeting we had to discuss what needed to be discussed cost us $17,000, which we could ill afford. We can't keep doing that.

The budgets we get from the department are very closely looked after. That's why I can never understand why they say everyone has to be transparent in their fiscal responsibilities. We've always had audits, and they're for them, not for our people. Now they're saying they're for our people, and we know that's nonsense. They're the first ones who will take it over because they want to have this domination over us. That's not a secret to me. I've been at this for over twenty years, and I see it.

In fact, we see people getting their budgets slashed, like AFN, because they're opposed to the minister's attitude. I can't wait until April 1, when I see my budget, if he knows that I'm speaking against him so strongly--not him personally, but what he's trying to advance to us.

Mr. Pat Martin: That's an excellent point.

Do I have a few seconds left?

The Chair: You have 30 seconds.

Mr. Pat Martin: We've had people come through these hearings saying they felt they were being punished for not getting behind Bob Nault's initiative. Do you have the sense that there could be punitive measures for not getting on board this bandwagon?

Chief John Smith: I fear it. I'm not sure how he would do it, because we're at minimal levels now.

The Chair: Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Chief, clause 15 of the bill is on legal capacity. Subclause 15(4) says:

For greater certainty, nothing in the section affects the interest in reserve lands or Indian moneys held by the members of a band in common under the Indian Act....

You mentioned the members are dispersed all over, but are there reserve lands recognized under the Indian Act for you?

Chief John Smith: Yes, we have eleven reserves. They total 460 acres, so none of them is really large enough to contain any amount of population, as I mentioned the number previously.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Do you hold other properties that may not fall under the reserve definition that you may be holding and wish to settle as part of your treaty negotiations or for future...?

Chief John Smith: Do you mean besides the whole territory?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Yes.

Chief John Smith: We have a fairly significant territory that has many things that are required for us to live natural and decent lives. We don't get to access the forests, for instance, and there are many regulations that have been put on us over fisheries and those other matters that are important to our people.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: What I also wanted to touch on was under the royal commission there was an instance I was privy to concerning the Chippewas of Sarnia. Some of their land was appropriated under the War Measures Act. Somehow because of the language that is in here, it causes me some concern--I just wanted to see how you'd react to it--about the disposing of rights and interest in property.

The situation with the Chippewas was they had a bank loan the chief and band had taken out, using property as collateral. When the bank came back for the loan and they were negligent in the repayment, the bank took the collateral, which was the land--you see, the Chippewas in Sarnia have these huge petrochemical plants right beside their reserve--and that's how they lost the right to that land.

This language exists in this bill, with the exception of the Indian Act, recognizing the reserve lands under the Indian Act. Is there a concern with these properties, the disposal of interest in property and rights to these properties in this bill? Did that language exist in the Indian Act before, or is this the first time this kind of language is starting to come into play?

¼ (1835)

Chief John Smith: To be quite honest with you, I don't remember the last time I read the Indian Act. I've had to deal with some changes, but I don't remember whether that was in there or not.

Some of those lands belong to the Crown anyway. We don't have any lands of our own, land set aside for our use.

The Chair: We'll ask our researcher to clear that up for us.

Ms. Mary Hurley (Committee Researcher): I just explained to Mr. Laliberte that clause 15 is entirely new law as far as first nations communities are concerned.

Just for your greater certainty, I'll point out that there is nothing in the current Indian Act that talks about the legal capacity of Indian bands or band councils.

The Chair: Thank you.

We invite you to make closing remarks.

Chief John Smith: It's kind of nice to be able to sit here and finally get some consultation. Whether or not this is ideal, it at least meets some of the criteria that have been set.

But the fact is, it's probably more time than was given to my tribe in terms of consultation before they put this paper together. I heard that it was coming around to our area. They had one meeting in Port Hardy or somewhere, and they called that “consultation”. I heard there were not many people there, and my citizens I talk to on a regular basis had never heard anything about it.

I don't think it would be very fair for the minister to just push this thing through without dealing with some of those problems that are ahead. These problems existed a long time ago. We've been trying to get a new community for a long, long time. Additions to reserves don't work because that takes months and months, if not years and years.

The thing is, my people say “Oh boy, I can stand in line now and I'll get all the stuff the other tribes get”. Well, it's not possible, because again, we don't have that land base to do that in order to practise any of the requirements to service our community at some high level. Even the ones that have a nice piece of land still can't because they're having to deal with this paper. They don't get to become grown-up people. They're still being put down with this kind of stuff.

It's turned out to be very difficult. There's just no way we can do it in two years, even if we agree. At this point I can't really agree because I think it's an infringement on our right to govern ourselves until we choose not to be governed that way. And we did, but not at this point. I feel that Mr. Nault is really being very authoritative and quite draconian. He's a different guy; he's never dealt with this kind of stuff before.

I thank you for the opportunity to speak to you.

The Chair: I thank you and all of the presenters very much. This time today was very valuable, and we're here all day tomorrow. The time we're spending together is very valuable. It will help, because our job, in spite of all that is said.... It's important for people to get on record information about the history, the suffering, and everything that is happening so that we understand the whole picture.

But at the end of the day, we're going to be doing clause-by-clause, and we assure you that we'll do our best to not damage the Indian Act--it's suffering enough as it is. As a piece of legislation, it's not good. We'll try to make it better. I know we're not going to make it perfect, but we'll do our best, and we thank you for your help.

Colleagues, tomorrow morning, instead of eight o'clock, we'll start at nine. There are two groups who will present together, and that will allow us a little bit of time in the morning to make phone calls--it will be 12 o'clock at home. The bus will be at the hotel at 8:15. We'll leave for this place at 8:30. We can leave all our documents here; the room will be secure.

We'll suspend until tomorrow morning at nine.

Thank you all.