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

Thursday, February 27, 2003

0805

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

Ms. Karen Stevenson (Cote First Nation)

The Chair

Ms. Karen Stevenson

The Chair

Ms. Karen Stevenson

0810

0815

The Chair

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

Ms. Karen Stevenson

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Ms. Karen Stevenson

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Ms. Karen Stevenson

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Ms. Karen Stevenson

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

0820

Ms. Karen Stevenson

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Ms. Karen Stevenson

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ)

Ms. Karen Stevenson

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

0825

Ms. Karen Stevenson

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Karen Stevenson

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Karen Stevenson

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Karen Stevenson

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Karen Stevenson

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Karen Stevenson

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Karen Stevenson

0830

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.)

Ms. Karen Stevenson

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Ms. Karen Stevenson

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Ms. Karen Stevenson

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Ms. Karen Stevenson

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Ms. Karen Stevenson

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Ms. Karen Stevenson

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Ms. Karen Stevenson

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Ms. Karen Stevenson

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Ms. Karen Stevenson

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Ms. Karen Stevenson

0835

Mr. Charles Hubbard

The Chair

Ms. Karen Stevenson

The Chair

Ms. Karen Stevenson

The Chair

Ms. Karen Stevenson

The Chair

Chief Claude Friday (Piapot First Nation)

0840

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief Claude Friday

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief Claude Friday

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief Claude Friday

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

0845

Chief Claude Friday

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief Claude Friday

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief Claude Friday

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief Claude Friday

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief Claude Friday

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

Chief Claude Friday

0850

Mr. Yvan Loubier

Chief Claude Friday

Mr. Yvan Loubier

Chief Claude Friday

The Chair

Chief Claude Friday

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

0855

Chief Claude Friday

Mr. Pat Martin

Chief Claude Friday

Mr. Pat Martin

Chief Claude Friday

Mr. Pat Martin

Chief Claude Friday

0900

Mr. Pat Martin

Chief Claude Friday

Mr. Pat Martin

Chief Claude Friday

The Chair

Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.)

0905

Chief Claude Friday

0910

The Chair

Chief Claude Friday

The Chair

Mr. Ron Crowe (Representative of the File Hills Qu'Appelle Tribal Council & Trustee of the Treaty 4 Trust, Treaty 4 Chiefs' Council)

0915

0920

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Ron Crowe

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Ron Crowe

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

0925

Mr. Ron Crowe

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Ron Crowe

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Ron Crowe

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Ron Crowe

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Ron Crowe

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Ron Crowe

0930

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Ron Crowe

0935

The Chair

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

Mr. Ron Crowe

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell

Mr. Ron Crowe

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell

0940

Mr. Ron Crowe

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Ron Crowe

0945

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Ron Crowe

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Ron Crowe

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Mr. Ron Crowe

0950

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Mr. Ron Crowe

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Mr. Ron Crowe

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Mr. Ron Crowe

Mr. Charles Hubbard

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell

Mr. Ron Crowe

The Chair

Mr. Ron Crowe

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Ron Crowe

0955

The Chair

Mr. Ron Crowe

The Chair

Professor John Whyte (Senior Policy Fellow, Saskatchewan Institute of Public Policy, University of Regina)

1000

1005

1010

1015

1020

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

The Chair

Prof. John Whyte

1025

1030

The Chair

Mr. John Whyte

The Chair

Ms. Tanis Fiss (Director, Canadian Taxpayers' Federation, Centre for Aboriginal Policy Change)

The Chair

Ms. Tanis Fiss

1035

1040

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Ms. Tanis Fiss

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

1045

Ms. Tanis Fiss

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Ms. Tanis Fiss

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Ms. Tanis Fiss

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Tanis Fiss

Mr. Pat Martin

1050

Ms. Tanis Fiss

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Tanis Fiss

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Ms. Tanis Fiss

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Tanis Fiss

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Ms. Tanis Fiss

The Chair

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell

Ms. Tanis Fiss

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell

Ms. Tanis Fiss

1055

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell

Ms. Tanis Fiss

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell

Ms. Tanis Fiss

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

The Chair

Ms. Tanis Fiss

The Chair

1100

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Walter Pelletier (As Individual)

1105

The Chair

MS. Connie Deiter (As Individual)

The Chair

Ms. Connie Deiter

The Chair

Ms. Connie Deiter

The Chair

Ms. Connie Deiter

The Chair

Ms. Connie Deiter

The Chair

Ms. Connie Deiter

The Chair

Mr. Hugh Poorman (As Individual)

1110

The Chair

Mr. Hugh Poorman

The Chair

Mr. Hugh Poorman

The Chair

Ms. Keitha Kennedy (As Individual)

1115

The Chair

Ms. Keitha Kennedy

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources

NUMBER 040

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Thursday, February 27, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¾ (0805)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.)): We will call the meeting to order to resume proceedings of public hearings on Bill C-7, an Act respecting leadership selection, administration and accountability of Indian bands and to make related amendments to other Acts.

Welcome, everyone. We're pleased to welcome, from the Cote First Nation, Councillor Karen Stevenson, accompanied by Ted Quewanze.

Welcome.

Ms. Karen Stevenson (Cote First Nation): Good morning. I'm by myself.

The Chair: Fine. We welcome you and we ask you to make your presentation. We will be together for 30 minutes, and we would appreciate it if you leave time for members to ask questions. But the time is yours. Please proceed.

Ms. Karen Stevenson: Good morning. I'd like to first apologize for my presentation. I was printing it out last night and on the first page my printer ran out of ink and it stuck here. I have to apologize for that.

The Chair: Don't apologize. You're here and we appreciate that. We would like you to feel that you're around the kitchen table, because that's the way we feel.

Ms. Karen Stevenson: Where's the bannock, then?

First of all, I would like to say good morning to you all and wish you a pleasant welcome to Saskatchewan. My name is Karen Stevenson. I am councillor, and I'm honoured to represent the membership of the Cote First Nation. I thank this committee for hearing our views on the proposed First Nations Governance Act.

Cote First Nation is a Saulteaux tribe and a member of the first nations of Treaty 4, who signed the treaties with the Crown in 1874.

My comments to this committee this morning will be brief and will focus on some specific major areas of concern that I myself, my fellow leaders, and our first nations membership have with the proposed federal legislation. My comments will focus on four areas of concern, although there are many issues I could raise if there was more time.

We are reviewing the final form of the proposed legislation. I hope you will keep my remarks today in your minds. Even before the Corbiere decision, Cote First Nation elected to revert to band customs because the Indian Act created havoc in our community. Families were divided, the communities split, there were ongoing disputes regarding who were the official elected leaders of our community, and Indian and Northern Affairs Canada added to the problem because of their constant interference in our electoral process.

We were placed under third-party status, which created more turmoil in the community. We wanted a change. We wanted to make our own laws to govern us because the Indian Act didn't work. Cote First Nation membership took the position that in order for us to own our laws, we create them, thus empowering us to follow them. This is how self-government should be--first nations law by first nations. After all, this great country we call Canada is our home and native land.

It is ironic that Minister Robert Nault introduced FNGA to give us tools to improve the quality of life in our communities. They did not consult Cote First Nation. No one took the time to ask for our input. Instead, the FNGA is being legislated.

Four areas of the proposed legislation that I wish to address are: process, scope, universal access to benefits and services, and the immediate need for the federal government and the first nations to develop an entirely new fiscal and governance framework that will meet the needs of our total membership.

I'm sure you will hear much about the demographics of the Saskatchewan region throughout the day. Among the important statistics are these: Saskatchewan first nations have the fastest growing population of all of Canada--four times the national average and twice as rapid as first nations in any other region in the country; the average age of our first nations people is 17, compared to age 35 in the general population in this province--an extremely large group of youthful citizens; incarceration and suicide rates are six to eight times the national average; there is upwards of 80% unemployment in many communities; there is substandard housing and community services; and there is a major shortage of off- and on-reserve housing.

These are the realities of our communities that the federal government should be addressing in legislative, policy, and program initiatives. I do not intend to dwell on these issues. I prefer to propose positive solutions. Our problem, however, with the proposed new federal legislation is that none of these issues is going to be addressed.

Let me turn now to the four topics I have identified.

Process. The FNGA is the continuation of the federally imposed rules on our first nations and our leadership. I find this very offensive. Our first nations are not agencies of the federal government. My view is that with the patriation of the Canadian Constitution in 1982, sections 25 and 35, which recognize our treaty and inherent rights to self-determination, would bring the dawning of a new era in Crown and first nations relationships.

What we need is a federal first nations government recognition act, one that recognizes the jurisdiction, authorities, and governance powers of our first nations and provides for a division of powers between federal, provincial, and first nations governments that reflects our status in this country.

What I'm seeing in this legislation is the continuation of the colonial mentality, imposed and devolved rules that will hinder more than help our efforts to become productive citizens in the mainstream Canadian economy and society.

¾ (0810)

I would like this committee to think about a first nations recognition act that will give legal recognition to our powers to make laws, develop policies, and implement programs that will meet the needs of our membership under our own traditional culturally appropriate systems.

Scope. It is no secret in first nations country that this proposed federal legislation is the government's response to the Corbiere court decision. The courts have said that all first nations citizens have political rights and are entitled to participate in the political affairs of a first nation. They have also said that first nations governments are accountable to their total membership regardless of residency, and also accountable for any public moneys administered.

The proposed legislation does deal with these issues and also the issue of clarifying the legal status of first nations in an administrative or corporate setting. What this legislation is ignoring is that Corbiere also suggests that the federal government is responsible for providing treaty benefits and statutory programs and services to all members of a first nation regardless of residency. I see this nowhere in the narrow legislation that is before Parliament for consideration. This leads me to my third topic.

Access to treaty benefits, programs, and services. I want to encourage the members of this committee to broaden your thinking and to propose substantial amendments to the existing text that will broaden the legal obligations of the federal government to provide services and benefits to all our membership regardless of where they live. In my mind, this is a major area in which the proposed legislation is deficient.

The argument can be made that these services and programs are available to off-reserve first nations members from the provincial or civic governments. This may or may not be true in a limited way, but the fact remains that our historic treaties did not draw artificial boundaries around our treaty rights or on the federal government to limit their obligations to the borders of the reserves.

The solution to this issue is quite simple in my mind. Either the federal government should directly deliver these services to our total membership or transfer the resources to our first nations governments to provide these services to all our membership, regardless. This is the true recognition of our relationship with the federal Government of Canada.

Fourth is the needs-based fiscal and governance relationship. In Saskatchewan we have a made-in-Saskatchewan treaty-based negotiating process, which has been under way for six years now. If this process has not been described to you by other speakers during your visit to this region, it will most certainly be before you leave the province.

The process in Saskatchewan is supposed to lead to a treaty-based recognition of first nations governments and new fiscal and governance arrangements in which all three orders of government--first nations, federal, and provincial--participate equally.

Our communities need the fiscal resources that have been developed in the Saskatchewan process to address the conditions I mentioned when I began my presentation. The federal government has either decided to shelve or ignore all the hard work that has been done over the last six years and the arrangements we have worked so hard to develop in support of our communities' needs and governance systems.

The question I'm asking the committee and, indirectly, the minister and the officials of the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs is why. Why are we continuing to play out in the small sandbox to address the problems of the federal government and not spending the time, energy, and resources on implementing the broader arrangements we have designed that are mutually respectful and that will go a long way to meet the needs of our total membership once they begin to be implemented?

I thank you for your attention to my brief remarks today. I hope you will take them into consideration and propose and support a much broader approach to the federal legislation--one that is not based on imposition but is based on recognition of our inherent right to self-determination, the equal status of our governments, and the Crown obligation to our treaty rights and benefits.

Thank you.

¾ (0815)

The Chair: Thank you very much, and it's very well done.

A five-minute round, Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much for being here, Karen. I don't know if you're related to Bob and Karen Stevenson in the province here, but if you are, then do say hi to them. Bob and Karen are from--

Ms. Karen Stevenson: Are they related to Grace?

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Yes.

Ms. Karen Stevenson: Okay, yes, they are.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Say hi to them for me. Thank you.

I just wanted to let you know that the committee has in fact heard about the made-in-Saskatchewan treaty-based negotiation process. That was described by the FSIN. That was really informative for us.

I have some questions about the process used in Saskatchewan. I understand that letters would have been sent to all bands across the country. Were you able to have some town hall meetings with your band members to look at the good and bad of Bill C-7? Did your first nation initiate any meetings?

Ms. Karen Stevenson: We were part of the process when Indian Affairs was going around consulting. We had a meeting with our membership in June 2001, I believe. We had about 100 band members there. Our chief and council take a lot of direction from our elders. We consult with them on issues. For this we talked to them about the treaties and things like that.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: You say here, Karen, that nobody took the time to ask for your input. My impression is that there was at least an attempt to provide some information. I don't know if it was through consulting, but there were some efforts like that. I know that in a number of situations the chief and council decided they didn't want to be part of the process, and that shut off the flow to their local members and so on. Did you guys have a chance to look at it and have members say, I don't like this but this is not too bad? Was that kind of open process allowed?

Ms. Karen Stevenson: The reason I said no one consulted us is because we got a package in the mail showing what was being proposed. We didn't get an invitation to come to the table to decide as a group. That's my point. That's why I said that.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: With regard to Bill C-7, it may be too restrictive, as someone has suggested, but there is the opportunity to write your own codes to reflect your customs and culture. Don't you see that there is an opportunity maybe later in the game to write your culturally sensitive laws and so on within the framework of Bill C-7?

¾ (0820)

Ms. Karen Stevenson: Actually, the Cote Band reverted to band custom. We made our own Custom Election Act, and we included the off-reserve people in the vote before the Corbiere decision came into effect. We are in the process right now of revisiting our election act because a change has to be made according to the FNGA. That's the appeal process.

I want to say that the appeal process in the Indian Act has created a lot of problems on the reserve. We had a lot of appeals. It was just terrible on our reserve. There was a lot of fighting. We didn't know from one day to the next who our chief and council were.

When we changed our band custom in 1998, we decided to take out the appeal process. We've had two elections since that time, and it seems to have helped our community. We were at third-party status, and come April 1 we're going to be managing our own affairs. We didn't have any interference from anybody. We made the law and we're following it.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Do you have laws in respect of financial management, accountability, and administration that you could just write into the Bill C-7 framework?

Ms. Karen Stevenson: Yes, we do. They include financial management, personnel policies, and a code of ethics.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Vellacott.

Monsieur Loubier, cinq minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good day, Madam.

I want to come back to what Mr. Vellacott said earlier about the consultative process. To my mind, it's clear that when we invite people to participate in consultations, the basic material used for this purpose must be acceptable to both parties.

We now know that First Nations object to the proposed legislation. Therefore, it's normal that a number of First Nations representatives were unwilling to sit down with the federal government and discuss an agreement that they considered thoroughly unacceptable, in both spirit and content.

As a rule, when intelligent individuals sit down to negotiate, they've already agreed on a basic text and are seeking to improve it. However, when parties disagree on the basic proposal, there's no point in getting people together for discussion purposes.

I can understand why several leaders of First Nations refused to hold discussions on a bill that is completely unacceptable in every regard.

Is it your view, Ms. Stevenson, that with Bills C-7, C-6 and C-19, the federal government is setting in motion a disastrous process designed to destabilize First Nations and to keep them otherwise occupied challenging federal initiatives, even in court? Do you not think the government has considerable resources that it will use to further its own cause, rather than yours?

When I think about this particular bill and the two others, about the concerns that you have raised here this morning and about those voiced in recent days by aboriginal representatives, the only conclusion I can draw is this: if the principal stakeholders find these conditions unacceptable, then we need to go back to the drawing board.

Any comments? Do you not feel that you have been steamrolled in a way in an effort to destabilize the situation and ultimately have you accept these three bills?

[English]

Ms. Karen Stevenson: I do feel that in the initial part of the negotiation it would have been more helpful to us if we had been invited in the beginning. I know as Cote First Nation people we wrote to Minister Nault's office that we were willing to participate in the process of negotiation regarding the governance act, and we didn't get a response. I didn't bring that letter today, but I do have a copy of the letter we sent to be involved in the second process of the phases that were being implemented.

All first nations people have their different views, but we feel it's important for us to be able to voice our concerns and our opinions. That's the reason I wrote a letter to this committee, so at least Cote First Nation would be heard. Prior to that we didn't get any recognition.

The Chair: Mr. Martin, for five minutes.

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Thank you, Ms. Stevenson. I understand your point about the consultation. It's something we've heard right across the country, that people felt offended, almost, that a package was given to them and not put together with any kind of cooperative approach. You've made that point clearly.

But further to that, regarding the FSIN's efforts with the new format you've been working on since 1996, the Government of Canada clearly stated they would not create any new policies or change anything in regard to treaties while this treaty governance process was under way in this province.

I guess my question is, do you view the FNGA as interfering with the important work we've been made aware of that's under way currently? Do you think the one is in contrast to the other?

¾ (0825)

Ms. Karen Stevenson: Well, I don't think either process is...there are conflicting points in each of them. For us, in our own area, we hope we can just do our own laws and things like that, as long as we are within a framework that's acceptable to the country.

Mr. Pat Martin: Okay.

I'm interested in the third-party management issue. More and more right across the country we are realizing how common this is.

Can you tell us how much per month the third-party manager was paid to administer your affairs, and does that come out of your general budget that you were given to provide basic needs to people?

Ms. Karen Stevenson: As far as I know, it does come out of our budgets. Our co-manager right now makes about $43,000 a year, and he's one of our band members. We went from the third party to co-manager, and the co-manager received a substantial amount more, and that was a non first nations person.

Mr. Pat Martin: That's what I am most interested in. How much were you paying the outside third-party manager when there was third-party management?

Ms. Karen Stevenson: I don't have the exact figure, but I think it was around $60,000 plus.

Mr. Pat Martin: We've actually heard figures elsewhere in the country that it's not unusual to see $15,000 to $20,000 per month for the third-party manager. Do you have any recollection of that?

Ms. Karen Stevenson: No. I believe it's a lot more than that, because we paid good money, and we had this person on a part-time basis also. From what I gather--I never saw his paycheque or anything--we were told it was approximately $60,000.

Mr. Pat Martin: Per year or per month, because I'm talking per month.

Ms. Karen Stevenson: A year. I don't know what that divides out to per month.

Mr. Pat Martin: Well, part-time, $15,000 to $20,000 per month is the figure in many provinces.

Ms. Karen Stevenson: If you divide 60 by that...I'm not a mathematician, but....

Mr. Pat Martin: I guess I'm interested in general terms. You sort of made the point, why this bill and why now when it isn't what your people want to deal with, when it doesn't have anything to do with actually moving forward or even meeting the basic needs of your community.

Why is the minister imposing this bill, and why now? That would be my question.

Ms. Karen Stevenson: For us, when we were under third-party management.... I'll make reference to that because it might clear up your question. When we became elected chief and council members, we saw how our community was. We consulted with our elders and we developed a mission statement for Cote Band. In that mission statement it clearly outlines the role and responsibility of the chief and council regarding the accountability kind of stuff, such as we couldn't do this or we couldn't do that. For example, chief and council cannot hold jobs on the reserve. So it kept us in line, basically.

We agreed that our roles as chief and council would be to run the affairs of the band, not to make ourselves rich. That was the problem with previous chiefs and councils that were on our reserve. That's why we went so badly into a deficit.

¾ (0830)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Hubbard.

Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning, Karen.

Bill C-7 does offer some options in terms of codes and elections. You mentioned in your presentation that under the election process, I guess, whoever has the most votes is chief. But you talk about a custom, that you've gone back to the custom.

Would you describe to our committee what custom you use, the process of how your chief is decided upon by custom?

Ms. Karen Stevenson: In the band custom we have a process. We select an electoral officer who runs our election. We have nominations. There are eligibility criteria for candidates for chief and council. A person who runs for chief or council cannot have an indictable offence, cannot be employed by the band, for one thing, and we have a polling station that is set up on election day.

We're able to run in the election. We have to put up some money. Well, it's not very much money, but we have to put up money in order to run, and we have to get a CPIC done from the RCMP. That proves we don't have an indictable offence.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: But you talk about chief by custom rather than by election. How is the chief decided upon?

Ms. Karen Stevenson: By voting.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: And you call that custom. You talked about having a previous method and then you came to a different process.

Ms. Karen Stevenson: Yes, it was basically a name change. It was from Indian Act to Cote First Nation Custom Election Act.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: But it's not like the elders, is it?

Ms. Karen Stevenson: It's not like the traditional hereditary system. We've had that system before, but since probably Gabriel Cote's time, it went away from the hereditary system.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: I'm correct to say, then, that some first nations have a system of elders, and rather than the members of the first nation voting, only the elders can vote to elect a chief.

Ms. Karen Stevenson: No, we don't have that now.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: You don't have that system.

Ms. Karen Stevenson: No, it's gone. Anybody over the age of 18 is allowed to vote, whether it's on or off the reserve.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: And for your chief in the last election, was there opposition? In other words, did two or three people offer themselves for chief?

Ms. Karen Stevenson: Yes, there were. We had three candidates, Chief Norman Whitehawk and two other band members, a male and a female, and our chief was elected by 547. I think it was about a 200 or 300 margin.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: One of the problems we have in terms of...you've talked about trouble with elections if you have different family groups that represent different candidates for chief. Does that actually happen with the Cote First Nation, that you have a family breakdown in terms of one family supporting one candidate and other families supporting others? Was this the cause of some of the problems you had prior to...I think you mentioned 1987 or 1988 in your presentation?

Ms. Karen Stevenson: When we reverted to band custom, that was our second act. I don't know the exact year we made our first custom, but we ratified our second one in 1998.

When I say families were split, I will give you an example with my family. Half of our family would be supporting one faction, the other one another faction. Families wouldn't all support the same candidate. That was just the way it was. It's like that all the time, and I'm sure it happens all over the world.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: And with your present processes, is it every two years you have elections?

Ms. Karen Stevenson: Two years, yes.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Bill C-7 talks about up to five years, Mr. Chair. Would this be an advantage to you, to have a longer term of office?

Ms. Karen Stevenson: Our membership right now have been talking about the fact that once you are elected.... There were different areas represented. The people felt that if you were an elected official of a band and were doing a good job and your term was two years, you shouldn't have any problem if you wanted to be re-elected.

¾ (0835)

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Okay. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much. This concludes this hearing, but we have about two minutes, and if you wish to make closing remarks we invite you to do that.

Ms. Karen Stevenson: I once again thank you all for listening to me, and apologize again for my report not having the first page. But I hope I have answered some questions and that you take our points to heart when you decide on your final report. I would appreciate it if we could get a copy of the final report, the recommendations of the committee and all that. I don't know when that's going to happen—the timeframe or that kind of thing. I hope it's way before the three-year period.

The Chair: We thank you very much. There is no need to apologize. If we don't have the corrected copy, just send it. We'll make sure—

Ms. Karen Stevenson: Yes, I can do that. I can send it. I have the—

The Chair: You were asking—our next witness is not here—about getting a copy of the report. What will happen now is that after our consultation, we will take every clause and debate it as a committee. Some of those clauses may be amended, some not. There seems to be consensus on the committee that we will amend this, that there is need for amendment.

Once we have done every clause, we send it back to the House of Commons. We are doing this work for the House of Commons, not for the minister, not for the Prime Minister or cabinet. When it gets to the House, there will be a debate. Then there will be a vote and maybe some amendments. If it passes the vote, it will be debated in the House again and there will be a third vote. But this is all on the Internet, and as we proceed it will be available.

Once it passes a third vote in the House of Commons, it goes to the Senate, and they start over from where we started, with the three votes, and the committee may decide to travel.

So it's a long process. We are hoping to complete our work by Easter. We're hoping; it's a long process.

Ms. Karen Stevenson: Okay. Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you. You answered the questions very well.

I now invite, from the Piapot First Nation, Chief Claude Friday.

Welcome, Chief. We have 30 minutes here. We will let you pour yourself a glass of water and then we will turn on the clock. We invite you to make your presentation, and hopefully you will allow some time for members to ask questions of you.

Please proceed.

Chief Claude Friday (Piapot First Nation): Good morning. My name is Chief Claude Friday, from the Piapot First Nation.

I'm here about Bill C-7, the First Nations Governance Act. Bill C-7 is not in the best interest of first nations peoples. Its concepts and principles do not address the inherent rights and traditions of first nations people. By design, it limits the ability of first nations to re-establish self-determined governance as traditionally practised before the signing of the treaties between our nations and Her Majesty, the government.

Bill C-7 also undermines the spirit and intent of treaties by minimizing the traditional roles and responsibilities of first nations chiefs. The First Nations Governance Act places the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development above the chiefs and the governance structure and exposes first nations to further abuse of the process, a process much worse than the Indian Act today.

I have met many first nations leaders across this country, and the First Nations Governance Act is not in the best interest of our people. Before our people signed the treaty we already had a governance structure in place. Under our traditions, customs, culture, and languages, the First Nations Governance Act does not apply to the Piapot First Nation.

Thank you.

¾ (0840)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We can go to seven-minute rounds, or do you prefer four and three?

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I'm fine with seven minutes.

The Chair: Mr. Vellacott is next for seven minutes.

For the others, if you wish to break it up and come back, I'm easy.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I'm interested, Chief, in the process your band went through. Did you have an opportunity to share some information on the draft of Bill C-7 at meetings in your community with the band members? Did you talk about the things you liked or didn't like about Bill C-7?

Chief Claude Friday: When the FNGA was introduced, the Department of Indian Affairs and the tribal council came to our community once and said they would get back to us on it. I think that was two or three years ago. As far as consultation with the government on the FNGA, that's as far as it went in our community.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: So once there was a draft version, within the last year or so, you never had an opportunity or took the opportunity to take it out to your people and look at it.

Chief Claude Friday: We never had an opportunity to look at the draft. Furthermore, on how I got here today with a volunteer who helps me out as chief, we had to find the information on an American website. We had to go searching for it in order to be here.

On your question about the draft, we had a tough time just getting here. I would like to see the draft in our community, but I'd like to reiterate it's not applicable in our community.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Bill C-7 has some areas of consideration here on leadership selection, financial management and accountability, and administration of government. Do you currently have written codes on those things in your band, not just verbal?

Chief Claude Friday: With leadership selection, we're under the Indian Act, and that's what we're going by right now. In our community, when I took over we were trying to implement those things, but we had interference from the Department of Indian Affairs. I have documentation, and not only that but video, on what we were trying to implement in our community. Our forefathers and the grandfathers already had a structure in place, and as first nations people it's built into us and it's an inherent right.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: From time to time I hear that talked about, in terms of traditional structures going way back. Is there a need to modernize and update that--we live in a little more complex, complicated world--while retaining those principles?

I talk to ordinary--not necessarily chief and council--grassroots band members. They tell me that so their chief and council are held accountable and there are no conflicts of interest, there needs to be a modernization and update, because we live in a little more complex society.

Is that occurring?

¾ (0845)

Chief Claude Friday: Yes, in our community we would like to...as first nations people we were always accountable to one another. I guess in the first nations community we have to modernize that, but it has to come from our first nations community, our people. The First Nations Governance Act, just the wording of it, I think, goes against the grain, because it wasn't first nations people who initiated it.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: There are a couple of questions I should ask.

Different people will acknowledge from time to time that there are issues that come up around leadership, conflicts that occur. Have you ever had those come up, Chief, in your band? Have you ever been in a difficult third-party management situation?

Chief Claude Friday: Yes, apparently I am in a third-party management crisis as we speak.

Not only that, there has been conflict in our band over the last five years. There have been so many appeals and so forth. And regarding the third party--our community accepted the third-party manager, but there are certain discrepancies in what the third party is capable of doing in our community. We do accept him, because of a number of reasons. But we want to work with the third party and implement the things that we, as first nations people, believe are accountable to our people first.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Do you see the need for something--different ones have suggested this--as a protection for you as chief and council, as well as for all the band members, an ombudsman or an ombudsman-like structure that is independent of the band, at a provincial, regional, or possibly national level, so if people have issues or concerns they can take them to that person and have some redress? That person would have the power to investigate. Sometimes issues are not things of real substance, and they're just set aside--somebody may have a petty complaint.

Is that something you would see as a need? Could it be done? If you were choosing it as first nations people and setting the parameters, is it something that might be a protection as these disputes and things happen?

Chief Claude Friday: As first nations people, we have our traditions and our beliefs, so I do believe that's already in place.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: It seems to me that on reserve, sometimes people are going to think there's bias or prejudice on one side or the other, and it's a little difficult if they're going to blame the chief's appointed person, that other faction. It leaves you in a bit of an awkward situation, and you can hardly win on that sometimes.

I guess what I'm talking about is the situation where you have an independent person outside your band, so nobody can accuse that they're not dealing with the situation fairly.

How big is your band? How many members?

Chief Claude Friday: Roughly 1,800.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: On reserve?

Chief Claude Friday: Three or four hundred.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Okay, thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Monsieur Loubier.

[Translation]

Mr. Loubier, you can use your full seven minutes right now, or use only four at this time, and save the next three for the following round. It's as you please.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: I'll use my seven minutes, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Then you have the floor for five minutes.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Good day, Chief Friday.

Earlier, you stated that you had tried to introduce some changes to the process for electing the chief and that the Department of Indian Affairs had stepped in. Could you explain in further detail what transpired and tell me if the government did in fact block changes that would have enabled you to revert to your ancestral ways of doing certain things?

[English]

Chief Claude Friday: Thank you for the very good question.

Yes, the department did interfere with the process of accountability, transparency, and governance in our community. I have letters and documents, legal opinions from three different lawyers. I have two legal opinions that the Department of Indian Affairs, under the Indian Act, tried to undermine me as chief of the band, and today we still have turmoil.

I am still contesting the validity of the Department of Indian Affairs' letters stating that there was a duly convened meeting under the Indian Act regulations. Three different lawyers tell me the department did not follow the regulations--and this is around an employee who's about to retire. It boggles my mind that an employee of the Department of Indian Affairs is about to retire and he doesn't understand the Indian Act. He wrote letters to me as chief of the band stating that a certain meeting met the Indian Act regulations, and I have three legal opinions to prove him wrong.

With his writing a letter like that, how can I implement our governance structure when I have constant interference from the Department of Indian Affairs?

¾ (0850)

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Chief Friday, would it be possible to obtain a copy of these letters?

I have another question for you. Earlier, you seemed to be saying that your band was administered by a third party and that there was no cooperation between yourself, a person democratically elected by your members, and the individuals in charge of managing your affairs. Could you tell me how things work? I'd like to understand how this type of cooperative management actually works. It all seems rather incongruous.

[English]

Chief Claude Friday: That's what I'm trying to figure out with a third party and the Department of Indian Affairs.

There seems to be a personal vendetta against me and my role as chief of the community, and my vision. That third party goes against the grain and the mission statement that they will work side by side with our community. They write me letters stating they don't know who the representative of our community is. I have written them a letter asking why he doesn't phone the Department of Indian Affairs and ask for their election results.

I have letters that I could share with you from our third-party manager stating that he doesn't know who the elected representatives are of our first nations.

The government wonders why there are so many problems in first nations. It's because you have government officials, INAC bureaucrats, and third-party managers who on the one hand paint a picture of how they would like to help first nations people, and on the other hand, as soon as you turn your back, they're on a different agenda item that will definitely keep us under the third party and stop our first nation from implementing our own structure, our own governance, and our own accountability.

It's a very frustrating process when you don't have cooperation from third-party management and a departmental official who doesn't understand the Indian Act himself.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Chief Friday, I'd appreciate it if you could send me these documents. I'm troubled by what you've just told us, namely that although you are democratically elected by your members, a third party manages your affairs without taking into account your decisions or orientations. That's beyond my comprehension. I'd like you to send me these documents. It's important for us to see them as we ponder our next move.

[English]

Chief Claude Friday: Yes, I will share the documents. I will also include the videotapes of our meetings and so forth, and I will forward all necessary documents and legal opinions to you.

The Chair: Please send them to the clerk, who will reproduce them. Everybody will get them, even the members who couldn't be here today.

Chief Claude Friday: Okay. I will distribute them to the clerk, and after that I hope to get a response.

The Chair: Okay.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Chief Friday.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Martin, you have seven minutes, or four and three.

Mr. Pat Martin: I'll use all seven now, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Friday. Thank you also for leaving enough opportunity for us to have this interpersonal dialogue.

The first question I have is quite a short one. Can you tell me how much money per month the third-party manager charges your band to do the financial oversight?

¾ (0855)

Chief Claude Friday: It's anywhere between $12,000 to $20,000 per month, and it comes right out of our existing funding. So if it's a third-party arrangement, how do we get out of debt when right off the bat they take the money? The band is already in debt. With the existing agreement there's no separate budget for a third-party manager. So that is a flawed process, and we're going backwards again.

Mr. Pat Martin: If it's $15,000 to $20,000 a month, that means $240,000 per year comes right out of the budget. It's money you could be using to meet the needs of the people in the community.

Chief Claude Friday: Yes, we could use it for housing, education, etc.

Mr. Pat Martin: That's the trend we've been seeing. In fact, I've seen copies of those contracts where the third-party manager is called the agent, going back to the Indian agent days. For a part-time chartered accountant to supervise the relatively small financial transactions of a first nation community and charge $20,000.... We've seen it as high as $30,000 a month even.

Thank you for that answer.

I'm most interested in the brief you've put forward here, and reading about the fact that the Treaty 4 people already have a Star Blanket First Nation Constitution; the Star Blanket First Nations Financial Management Act; the Touchwood Agency Wildlife Management Act; the Treaty 4 Tribunal, which is like the ombudsman-type idea where grievances can be brought forward to an independent third body; and the police management boards.

It sounds to me like the people within the Treaty 4 are well on their way to the institutions necessary for true self-governance. The imposition of the First Nations Governance Act flies in contrast to all the development you've done so far, and if you don't comply with the First Nations Governance Act within two years, it will be imposed on your community anyway.

Would you care to comment on how you feel about that?

Chief Claude Friday: The government imposed the Indian Act on us and now they're trying to impose the First Nations Governance Act on us. That violates our rights. Not only that, in our Treaty 4 area, as you can see, there are a number of initiatives of different bands. Those are the things I'm talking about in our community. I keep getting interference from the Department of Indian Affairs and our third-party manager. You guys wonder why we have problems in our communities. That's the reality of it.

I would like to reiterate that the First Nations Governance Act is not applicable in our community. In the Department of Indian Affairs, an official who's been with them for x number of years and is about to retire doesn't understand the Indian Act. So why would the government want to impose the First Nations Governance Act on us when you have employees who don't understand the Indian Act in the first place?

Before we even look at the First Nations Governance Act, I think the department has to seriously look at their staff and whether they understand the existing act, the Indian Act.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you, Chief. I understand you to say you would rather take part in the institutions that are already being built in the Treaty 4 area rather than have new institutions or new governance rules imposed on you.

Chief Claude Friday: Yes, because it doesn't make sense to me for them to try to impose the First Nations Governance Act when they don't know the Indian Act. Why impose something else on us when the Department of Indian Affairs doesn't understand the Indian Act themselves? Why would they want to step up to another act when I have documentation proving that the official at the Department of Indian Affairs does not know the Indian Act?

¿ (0900)

Mr. Pat Martin: Going back to the consultation process, were you actually asked to the table? If you were asked to the table in an open sort of atmosphere, where you could have some say as to what changes would take place, would the First Nations Governance Act be among those changes, or would you have brought different issues to the table, different opinions? I am saying if the consultation was true consultation, where they were interested in what you had to say.

Chief Claude Friday: If they were true consultations, our community would definitely look at the act and see how our traditions and our cultures and our beliefs and our language would go hand in hand with the government. As leader of our community and our first nation, I can tell you we believe that in order to succeed we have to understand one another and to build those bridges. If it were a fair and open process, we would be most definitely honoured to take part in the process.

Mr. Pat Martin: The vice-chief of the B.C. Assembly of First Nations, Herb George, said that if this bill is to go ahead, one thing that would make it more acceptable is if the recommendations on governance in the act were optional. Therefore, if some band didn't have structures in place, as you clearly do, then here is a template that you can buy into, if you choose.

Would that take away some of the apprehension you fear about the FNGA?

Chief Claude Friday: I can't speak for every community, but as leader and chief of the band, I would definitely take that back to my people and our elders and we would discuss that.

I'm still of the opinion that it's not applicable. But if the government went that route, instead of forcing it upon us--because one shoe doesn't fit all--if it was an option, I think that would be a better route. But I still reiterate, FNGA doesn't apply to the Piapot First Nation.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Dromisky.

Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to play the devil's advocate here and use a completely different approach, since it's our last day in Saskatchewan.

Concerning your statements regarding notification of consultative sessions by the minister, I'd like to point out to you that several notifications were sent to each and every chief. Also, regional directors notified chiefs regarding the kinds of sessions that would be held. If anybody was interested, all they had to do was communicate and sessions would be held.

In Saskatchewan, in phase one there were 73 consultative meetings held in this province—that's before the bill was presented in the House; 56 were on reserve and 17 were off reserve. It included over 2,000 people taking part.

Then, after the bill was put into the House of Commons, there were 46 information-sharing sessions held in this province, which is really a fantastic record here, I think; 16 were held on reserve and 30 were held off reserve. I think the picture we have here in Saskatchewan is a very good, healthy picture of the interest shown by a great number of people of the first nations.

Now I'm going to go to a second phase of my question, and that concerns accountability to one another. I've heard for many years this expression being given by leaders of first nations people from coast to coast, especially in northwestern Ontario: “accountable to one another”.

The reason Bill C-7 is on the table today is because of the great number of injustices that have been held and carried out on a great number of reserves in this country. The leaders of the first nations people are quite aware of many of these injustices. There are a great number. But never have I heard a united national move by the leaders of the first nations people to put a stop to many of the injustices that are carried out by chiefs and councils on the various reserves throughout the country.

This is not an indictment that all chiefs have been operating in this way. But just like popcorn popping up here and there, chiefs have omnipotent powers. They're very powerful people. They have dictatorial powers on some reserves and they take advantage of that.

Transparency? Forget about it. Equal treatment of all their citizens in their community? Forget about it. But the united leaders of the first nations people have done nothing about it. Suddenly comes a recommendation on a movement where we could develop tools to alleviate and get rid of many of these problems that exist that we've been hearing about for many years. And what happens? Suddenly all the national leaders and all of the chiefs are totally opposed to a move to correct many of the injustices that are occurring on the reserves.

I want to know why all of a sudden—and I'm sure many of the chiefs didn't even read the documents—they're on the bandwagon to stop a move that will give the power to the people, the grassroots, and get rid of many of the injustices that exist on these reserves.

I would like your reaction to my statement.

¿ (0905)

Chief Claude Friday: Thank you, Stan.

You talk about injustices. We're not the ones who created them. You talk about accountability and you talk about leaders. You talk about very powerful...in our situation, in Piapot's situation, the Department of Indian Affairs is trying to strip me of my chieftainship in my community.

So you wonder why we have so many problems. And you talk about injustices. As we speak, there is an injustice going on right here in my community by the federal government. You talk about injustices. We've been on this mother earth for many years. We didn't create the injustices. First nations people didn't create the injustices.

You look at the treaties. Then you look at the Indian Act. You look at the First Nations Governance Act. If you look at the treaties, the government is eroding our treaty rights. That's an injustice. You're saying the leaders are against the FNGA. They're not against it.

And you talk about on and off reserve. Of course, people are going to show up because they're concerned, because it's another injustice to our communities.

Accountable. Yes, we want to be accountable, but when you have injustices happening in our communities like what's happening in my community, who's creating it?

I wish you guys could come out to my community, and not only that, I will share the documents I have and the videotapes, and then you'll see the injustices that are being done to our people right under the nose of the minister. The minister speaks about FNGA, but it's an injustice. There were 16 on-reserve and 30 off-reserve meetings. That's an injustice. When they go into communities and they hand out pamphlets without proper consultation, and then they try to force the FNGA upon our people, that's an injustice.

And you wonder why leaders balk at the FNGA. It's because the federal government, they walk into backyards and they say, here, people, this is what we're going to do to you guys. As leaders, as chiefs of our communities...you guys haven't been in our shoes. You don't know what it's like to be in our shoes. When you're dealing with 101 things on the plate and then you have the First Nations Governance Act forced upon you, that's an injustice.

¿ (0910)

The Chair: Thank you very much. This completes your time. We appreciate your contribution, and we look forward to receiving those documents and that video. I assure you that they will be shared with every member of the committee.

If you wish a minute or two for closing remarks, we will grant you that, even though we're over our time.

Chief Claude Friday: Yes. I would like to thank the standing committee, on behalf of our community, our elders, and our membership, for being here. As chief of the band, I thank you guys for your time, and I will be forwarding the necessary documents and the videotapes to the clerk of the standing committee on aboriginal affairs. So again, I'd like to say I thank you guys.

The Chair: And we thank you very much.

I now welcome, from the Treaty 4 Chiefs' Council, Ron Crowe, representative of the File Hills Qu'Appelle Tribal Council and trustee of the Treaty 4 Trust.

This being a council, we have 45 minutes together. We invite you to make your presentation and hopefully allow time for questions.

Mr. Ron Crowe (Representative of the File Hills Qu'Appelle Tribal Council & Trustee of the Treaty 4 Trust, Treaty 4 Chiefs' Council): Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the committee, and to my chief, Claude Friday, as well as our band members.

First of all, I should properly introduce myself. My name is Ron Crowe. I am the chairman of the File Hills Qu'Appelle Tribal Council. I'm also the treasurer of the Treaty 4 Trust and Holding Corporation, and in the last couple of years I have occupied the chair of the Treaty 4 executive council, and of course that led me to the chair of the chiefs' forum as well.

I am actually here on behalf of Senator Roland Crowe, who can't be here because of some difficulties he's had with his health. So I'm here on behalf of him, and I bring greetings on behalf of the nations of Treaty 4.

I welcome you to Treaty 4 territory. These are the traditional lands of the Nakota, Cree, and the Saulteaux Nations. As well, we have two Lakota and Dakota bands within our treaty territory. They've been accepted into our territory by the treaty partners and the Treaty 4 chiefs. So I want to give you their welcome.

Unfortunately, they couldn't accept our invitation to attend our Treaty 4 governance facility in Fort Qu'Appelle. That being said, I welcome the opportunity to be here this morning.

First I'll give you a bit of an overview and background of where we're at in Treaty 4.

Treaty 4 is comprised of 34 first nations, and in Saskatchewan alone that represents about 40% of all the first nations in the province.

Treaty 4 is about implementation of our inherent right to self-government in a manner that reflects principles set out in the RCAP report. The inherent right to self-government is non-negotiable. What may be negotiated is a process covering self-government development. To give you a bit more background on our Treaty 4 objectives, we're looking at stability in governance through implementation of governance instruments.

We are also a collective approach of first nations. We are building upon aggregated institutions that we have within Treaty 4, and we're building upon accomplishments of our ancestors, our elders, and our former leaders, so that we are able to enjoy and share some of the benefits of the sacrifices they have made.

We have a number of Treaty 4 structures, which are noted in your documentation, and I'll quickly review them a little bit later. We have a number of structures in place. We have our executive council, of course. We also have our trust and holding corporation; the Treaty 4 Treaty Protection Office; the Treaty 4 Elders' Council; the Treaty 4 Governance Institute; and of course the Treaty 4 Chiefs' Council, the forum that mandates us to move ahead in our developments.

Treaty 4's concrete progress on first nations constitutions and laws is the result of activities that occurred well before FNGA. In fact, for your information, Minister Nault, in 1999, when we hosted a national treaty gathering, witnessed the initial adoption of the Treaty 4 convention. This predates the contemplation of the First Nations Governance Act.

In your information package you have a number of documents, and I think they've already been highlighted in the previous presentation: the Treaty 4 governance model, including the Treaty 4 Treaty Protection Office; the Treaty 4 proclamation and convention; the constitution of the Star Blanket First Nation; the Treaty 4 financial management act; and the Treaty 4-INAC memorandum of understanding on consultations only with regard to the First Nations Governance Act consultations.

One of the reasons why we participated in the consultations is because we felt we had the duty to inform our people, citizens of Treaty 4, about not only the First Nations Governance Act but the Treaty 4 governance model, and to compare the objectives, similarities, and parallel paths that are taking place with the Treaty 4 governance model and the First Nations Governance Act.

To give you a little bit more background, we do have a Treaty 4 urban, or off-reserve, initiative taking place, particularly concentrated here in the city of Regina. In addition to a number of things, we also have a home ownership program that is just beginning to get under way, in addition to our social housing program.

We have concentrated on adult education. We need to work towards better working relationships in health, social development, and economic development here in the city of Regina.

These things take time. These things take capacity. These things take resources, and they take human resources as well. So we're moving ahead with those visions, those goals and objectives, that are set out, but it does take time.

¿ (0915)

We certainly look towards our treaty partners to assist us in making these developments happen.

The Treaty 4 alternative dispute resolution and justice tribunal is a panel that has had relative success in the past. We have approximately 20 members who have been trained in tribunal and dispute resolution.

We've had success in resolving an appeal, which was our first and primarily our only task to this point in time, and that was an election appeal. It was certainly a success from our point of view in that Indian Act appeals normally take quite a time, perhaps a year, sometimes more, sometimes less. They're fairly enormous in cost. They are decided not within a public setting, and it is usually a person in Ottawa who makes the final decision. The tribunal we set up for an election appeal was settled within two to three months, it cost $5,000, and everybody was satisfied with the results.

So those are some of the strengths and successes we hope to build upon, but I underline that the mandate has to come from the first nation, from the band, in order for us to have those kinds of successes. We cannot impose ourselves, as others have imposed their laws and practices within the communities.

Our Treaty 4 economic strategy, self-sufficiency linked to self-government.... Presently, we have pursuits encompassing agriculture, and particularly livestock, ethanol development, and organic agriculture. So we are moving forward on the economic front as well, and that's more for information.

More to the point, on the Treaty 4 and the First Nations Governance Act, Treaty 4 is generating its own models and mechanisms for change. We are opposed to imposed change by a First Nations Governance Act or a unilateral federal policy. The Treaty 4 and Department of Indian Affairs memorandum of understanding shows a cooperative partnership designed to inform people about the Treaty 4 governance model and the First Nations Governance Act.

The First Nations Governance Act cannot serve only one treaty partner, that being the federal government. Acts of INAC must build upon the relationship in the context of our treaty relationship. That is the essence of our presentation.

The FNGA ignores the spirit of the treaty relationship. It is unilateral and is designed to impose change. The First Nations Governance Act may be the Crown's instrument for self-government development, but the federal government must recognize and respect the instruments established by first nations, in our case the Treaty 4 governance model.

The FNGA contemplates exemptions, but there is no clear mechanism for this to occur. Treaty 4 expects an early accord with the Crown, which will set the foundations for this exemption process based on the Treaty 4 governance model. The fact that Treaty 4 is well ahead of the First Nations Governance Act, in our opinion, and our process is mandated by our first nations.... Currently, INAC officials acknowledge that Treaty 4 constitutions, laws, tribunal, and public policies generally exceed FNGA's minimum standards.

What we expect from this presentation to your standing committee, the message we would like to get across today, is respect Treaty 4 and the sacred treaty relationship we have with the federal government, with the Crown, and revise and clarify FNGA on the following fronts: ensure a facilitative, not a prescriptive approach; provide for early designation of self-government models such as Treaty 4 that are targeted for exemption from FNGA; ensure adequate funding and human resources for first nations governance developments and government capacity. And we ask you to impress upon Indian Affairs to give substantial support to ongoing development and implementation of Treaty 4 governance, economic, and service institutions.

We want to be clear what the Treaty 4 governance model is. It is a way and means of a collective approach to the inherent right to self-government on behalf of the 34 first nations within Treaty 4. Some of the issues you will hear, and probably have heard throughout...I think we would be best suited to deal with many of those situations that come forth.

We have a collective approach. It is steeped in the history of the Iron Nations alliance of the Cree, the Saulteaux, and the Assiniboine. It is steeped with compatibility and a willingness to work together, but we cannot accept any unilateral or imposed change, and we ask you for your careful consideration and your deliberations on the Treaty 4 governance model.

With that, I will thank you for allowing me the time to make the presentation, and I will try to answer any of the questions you have for us.

¿ (0920)

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

Seven minutes, Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Right.

Thank you, Ron, for being here today.

You seem to be advanced in your governance plans, at least in terms of the document phase of it. I know sometimes that what's on paper and what's actually operational at any point in time is not always one and the same, but I assume you're moving along the lines of getting this all implemented.

My question would be along the lines of what you've already developed and, as you say, has been indicated to you that it surpasses at some point. Do you have what in the broader society they'd call a Canadian Human Rights Act? Maybe I should ask that question. Do you think first nations people, individuals across our country, should be covered and protected by the Canadian Human Rights Act?

Mr. Ron Crowe: Generally, and specifically to your question, there are necessities to ensure that all citizens have basic protections, whether it's a relationship through treaty or other acts of government, including the Canadian Human Rights Act.

We don't hold ourselves necessarily separate from any acts of government or any regulations and policies. What we look for--and perhaps I'm answering a different question--is we look at compatibility of laws and the mutual respect and recognition that is necessary for individuals to enjoy life within a country, within a community. We look at compatibility.

We certainly don't want to give you the impression that we want to hold ourselves away from other laws, such as the Criminal Code of Canada or the Canadian Human Rights Act. We want to ensure that the values we instill within our laws are representative of our values, representative of our culture, and are compatible with other laws of the land as well.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Following up on that a bit then, the Canadian Human Rights Act doesn't apply to first nations people across our country. They don't have those kinds of protections that everybody else assumes or takes for granted. They have redress. They have appeal processes. They have those things. If there's been perceived injustice, whether, as I say, real or perceived, they have places they can go to.

Would you perceive or conceive possibly, Ron, of having a first-nations-like Canadian Human Rights Act that would give everybody those kinds of protections so that individual rights are not overridden in an arbitrary way?

Mr. Ron Crowe: If I refer you to one of the documents in your package--the red package--it is the Treaty 4 proclamation convention, which talks about individual rights, and it generally talks about accountability mechanisms, transparency, and those general statements. As well, each citizen within Treaty 4 under this model has a right to express opinion, a right to redress, a right to vote in an election. Many of those rights you talked about are part of the values we've incorporated into our Treaty 4 convention.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Okay. I will read that with interest. I didn't get a chance.

Along that line, do you have something within that document, which I haven't had a chance or opportunity to read yet, Ron, that gives an ombudsman-like individual or persons who there can be redress to on a tribal level within the FSIN?

¿ (0925)

Mr. Ron Crowe: What you're getting at is some of the details of implementation of rights and responsibilities. We're at a point where we're trying to build a governance structure. I would say to you that we would not be opposed to ensuring there is a right of redress or ombudsman-type approach. Those are some of the details that have to be worked out as we move forward on our governance model.

We are at a point where we have to concentrate on the details and the implementation schemes of our governance model. I would say to you that one of the values we hold is individuals' rights and general values of transparency, accountability, and redress.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Bill C-7 has a process proposed at this point, at least at the draft stage of it here, the stage it is right now, where there would be an ombudsman on each reserve. I think I'd have a bit of a concern about that. Your proposal that comes from FSIN, I think, if I understand, when you get the whole detail of it, takes it outside of that so there's an independence. It's a perceived conflict of interest if you have the chief and council appointing the ombudsman who's going to make judgment on them or with respect to issues that would come up. Do you agree with that?

Mr. Ron Crowe: Whether it is an FSIN ombudsman or a Treaty 4 ombudsman, I think the point is we would welcome those kinds of opportunities for redress within our governance model.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: My one last question is--I have a little bit of time left. The other thing that was recommended in JMAC was some of the women's issues--women's rights, real matrimonial property, and so on. Do you have methods to address that? Often we hear and have first nations women coming and talking about how those particular concerns of theirs are not addressed. They get kicked out of a house or whatever, and there are individual circumstances, of course. There don't appear to be matrimonial property rights, at least in the sense that we might understand it in non first nations communities. Is that addressed or perceived to be addressed at some point as well down the road? Women have that concern.

Mr. Ron Crowe: Again, you talk about the detail and the actual instruments and institutions that are going to be developed from certain acts.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: So they aren't as yet.

Mr. Ron Crowe: No, they're not as yet. But I remind you of the values we have. Mutual respect and values of sharing and caring--

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Right. I understand that.

Mr. Ron Crowe: --are ingrained. I believe any laws or regulations we implement under the treaty for a governance model would respect women, would respect children, and would respect the elderly as well, to ensure there are no abuses whatsoever within our communities. And if there are abuses for whatever reasons, they would be rectified in an appropriate way.

Those are part of our values. What you're talking about are actual specific instruments that we are attempting to achieve, and the important point is that these values would be represented in any level of legislation we establish.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Martin, seven minutes.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr. Crowe, for an excellent brief and your thoughts on a number of views.

I would start first by saying I'm always impressed at the level of organization that is evolving right across the country in terms of first nations governance issues and how far along the road these issues really are at the memorandum of understanding level, or, in the case of Manitoba, where I come from, the MFA, Manitoba Framework Agreement, which is along these similar lines.

What we're hearing right across the country is that the minister and the government don't seem to have recognized the good work that's taking place and that the FNGA may in fact run in contrast to, or even interfere with, the important work that's already been done. I would ask you to comment on that.

But first, on the consultation process, we've been hearing the minister say that fully 10,000 people were involved in the development of the FNGA. What he's done is count every head of every body--whoever came to an information meeting--and is making the allegation that those people had an actual role in the development of the FNGA.

What are you hearing about comments such as that?

Mr. Ron Crowe: Well, I'm not going to dispute the minister or any Indian Affairs official who says 10,000 people have been involved in some of the communities that have been hit with the consultations, or the urban communities. In fact, we took part in some of those consultations. In fact, we coordinated some of those consultations.

For the most part, I think what we attempted to do at Treaty 4 by participating is try to inform the citizens of Treaty 4, not only of the First Nations Governance Act, which seems to have taken the attention, but also of the FSIN common table processes. Representatives were in place to explain that as well, and geared to us, the Treaty 4 governance model we're attempting to do.

What we attempted to do through these consultation processes and our full participation was to inform our people and create a debate, or a dialogue, around the institutions we're establishing. I think we did that.

But I have to say, in many of the consultations that took place, I'm not sure we could all walk away with a feeling of satisfaction that we accomplished a lot. There were a lot of difficult discussions, a bit of acrimony, and perhaps a bit of finger-pointing in those discussions as well. I think we concentrated, and those consultations might have concentrated, on present day-to-day issues without looking at the larger picture. I think that helped steal some of the focus away from the Treaty 4 governance model as well as the FNGA. I can't say there was a lot of satisfaction in providing a good dialogue or public debate on some of the governance issues, other than dealing with the day-to-day things.

I don't take any particular issue with how many people participated, how many people accessed the website. I've done it myself to express my views and thoughts as a person, a first nations individual. I think what is important is what we got out of there and what information was delivered.

Through our consultation process, I think there was a lot of comfort for some of the things we're establishing. It gave us an opportunity to explain to our citizenship, because we lack a lot of the resources. We have a staff of two--actually three; we just brought on a secretary or office clerk. We have a staff of three charged with a large responsibility of nation building and governance building. We lack the resources, so we utilized that opportunity to be able to present the Treaty 4 governance model, because it's been very difficult to get to every town hall meeting, or band hall meeting, every community, to try to explain these things. We took advantage of that for our purposes to explain the Treaty 4 governance model.

I'm not sure if I've answered your question. I've just given you a little bit more insight. I'm not sure if it was a question.

¿ (0930)

Mr. Pat Martin: Maybe not.

Given the difficulty of trying to keep people informed on these very complex issues, do you think the timeframe for the First Nations Governance Act is reasonable in terms of informing a million people right across the country of the first consequential amendments to the Indian Act in, arguably, 50 years?

Could you comment on the fact that this will probably be rammed through by June and imposed on people shortly afterwards? Given your experience in how complex a matter this is in trying to garner support for complex constitutional issues, what do you think of the timeframe of Bill C-7?

Mr. Ron Crowe: Unfortunately, the act is coming forward very quickly, and unfortunately for us, we are not in a position to have a clear indication of whether or not Treaty 4 would be exempt from that because of the developments we are doing.

In the previous presentation you mentioned--I'm not sure if this is appropriate to bring up--that some of the initiatives of the First Nations Governance Act, some of the objectives, are running parallel...there are similar objectives, but they somewhat fly in the face of some of the developments that take place at Treaty 4.

We would be far more comfortable with an approach that built upon our successes, our development to this point in time: the development of the Treaty 4 Governance Centre, which is basically our legislative body, an actual building, a real building, a concrete and steel type of structure that would house our legislative assembly. I would feel a lot more comfortable if we spent significant time in developing a process that recognizes the Treaty 4 governance model over a long-term rather than short-term implementation or imposition of a federal act that will affect us.

If I can make this one point, the First Nations Governance Act itself, for whatever reason people have supported or have not supported it, to us, seems to be more of a benefit to the federal government, for their purposes, as opposed to benefiting the first nations. We think there would be a far more balanced approach if we recognized approaches like the Treaty 4 governance model.

¿ (0935)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Ms. Karetak-Lindell, seven minutes.

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

You said you represent 40% of all first nations in Saskatchewan. What is the number?

Mr. Ron Crowe: That would be approximately 40,000 people, both on and off reserve. If you look at the percentages in Saskatchewan, there are approximately 100,000 first nations people, making up 10% of the province; 40% of that would be approximately 40,000.

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: Okay.

Yesterday we heard from FSIN, I believe they're called--this is my first time in Saskatchewan, so I'm trying to get familiar with it. They said they represented quite a group of people. We heard also from the Battleford Tribal Council, and they represented quite a number of people. I did some comparisons of some of the individual bands that gave presentations also, and they weren't included on the list of bands.

So between the Treaty 6 process, which sounded like they were right on the road to managing their own affairs--I know they're managing their own affairs now--and then a group like yourself, which represents quite a few people, I'm trying to figure out, sitting here, how we deal with this. There seem to be some small bands that are not in any process, and I'm kind of wondering why they're not. I imagine it's because they choose to have their own process.

Mr. Ron Crowe: If I can just go back to your first point, you heard from the FSIN, and if I recall, there was a mention of the framework agreement initiative from Manitoba. I want to say, first of all, there is a partnership between Treaty 4, the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations, and the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, recognizing those processes.

What we've strived for in our memorandum of understanding with the two organizations is basically to implement the clarifications of governance that the FSIN has achieved and the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs has achieved.

So just to be clear, there is no pushing and shoving and claiming of membership. There are partnerships, and it's just at different levels where we assume responsibility. We recognize that AMC and FSIN have received mandates to clarify governance capacities or processes.

On your question about some of the bands that are not represented, I'm trying to find out if you mean by tribal council, by treaty area, or by FSIN. For the most part, all the bands in the Treaty 4 territory have accepted the fact that there is a Treaty 4 model, and none of them sit independently from Treaty 4.

That's not to say that we have two non-treaty bands, the Standing Buffalo and Wood Mountain, both of the Dakota-Lakota tribes, but they have asked for membership and have been accepted by the Treaty 4 first nations as being willing partners in the Treaty 4 process.

So there isn't the independence that I think you're talking about. All the Treaty 4 bands that we have within the territory have stood with Treaty 4 and don't call themselves independent from Treaty 4.

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: How do you control the membership? I have been hearing witnesses for a couple of weeks on this, and one of their main concerns is who defines membership. Some of the difficulties some bands have obviously had is Bill C-31 people who have become members again, without their necessarily having the resources to treat them as members. I imagine that's one of the reasons some bands were getting into deficit situations and therefore into third-party management.

How do you decide who is a member and who is eligible to vote in your process or elections?

¿ (0940)

Mr. Ron Crowe: Membership is probably one of the stickiest points when you deal with self-government arrangements and the inherent right of self-government.

Unfortunately, at this point in time we have very little capacity to control membership of first nations. What we talk about—just to take it a step further—is citizenship: Treaty 4 citizenship.

Let me put it this way. We really believe, as Treaty 4 nations, that Treaty 4 citizenship should be defined based on our values, our customs, and practices. There are those within our community who are not, for lack of a better word, status Indians registered within the community, but who have accepted the cultures and the values and have been accepted by the community and should for all intents and purposes become Treaty 4 citizens—because we are talking about nationhood and, representative of our nation, the Cree, the Assiniboine, and the Saulteaux nations.

The advent of Bill C-31 has placed some hardships on our band and has created a number of funding problems because resources didn't fall in line with the size of membership.

Further to that, with the recent court case—and I will say I support the effect of Corbiere—when you have more of an electorate and don't have the funding to service their needs, because our funding is generally provided for on-reserve as opposed to off-reserve, you are going to have more demands on first nation governments and first nation bands. All of these things are building up and steamrolling into a very difficult situation for first nations, where they are not in a position to control membership. Memberships are swelling, and what's worse, in years to come our membership—our first nations citizenship—will decline through the long-term effects of Bill C-31. That, I think, is going to be a travesty.

I think it's time that Treaty 4 first nations and all first nations be able to define their own membership. Right now, we have the Indian Act and the effects of Bill C-31 that are going to eliminate the citizenship of first nations people. In 50 years' time you will see dramatic changes and drop-offs as a result of the long-term effect.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

This concludes the first round. We have time for another round of four minutes.

[Translation]

Do you have any questions, Mr. Loubier?

Mr. Yvan Loubier: No, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair Mr. Martin, you may have four minutes.

Mr. Pat Martin: Yes, I guess I could take advantage of that, then, please.

I'm interested in some of the specifics you have outlined. Some of the questioning from the other parties was about the idea of an ombudsman, and you made the point that the Treaty 4 system currently has a resolution mechanism for grievances.

Could you speak a little more about how that's structured and how you make sure there isn't any conflict of interest in the composition of the—I'm sorry, I don't know the term you are using for the board—is it ombudsman?

Mr. Ron Crowe: What we've established is the alternative dispute resolution process. What we attempt to do there is to resolve disputes within the community, amongst two communities, amongst groups of communities.

The intent is to resolve disputes by bringing forward in a public process a hearing type of approach with members of a tribunal. We have at this point in time 20 completely trained individuals from a variety of cross-sections within the Treaty 4 territory.

We do have conflict of interest mechanisms to ensure that there is no bias in favour of an appellant or defendant in the hearing process. The intent is to create an environment where we can quickly, readily, and more favourably resolve issues and bridge some understanding, as opposed to making a decision in which you have one winner, one loser.

The alternative dispute resolution process has been successful in at least one case. I go back to the point where we have to be mandated by the first nation, by band law, by band will, by political will or whatever, to be able to develop a resolution process, where there is a hearing, where there is...and also introducing some of our cultural and spiritual background into the facility, so that it is not so formal. Well, there is a necessity for formality, but there's also a genuine feeling of accomplishment while we're inside those forums.

Through the--

¿ (0945)

Mr. Pat Martin: I'm going to run out of time here, Mr. Crowe. May I ask one specific question? Do both parties have to stipulate agreement to that method of resolution? What if one party wants to use this ADR and one party doesn't? What is the situation then?

Mr. Ron Crowe: If it's just a matter of using the process for the sake of the process, I think it's doomed to fail. I think many of our people who coordinate the tribunal will recognize whether or not there's sincerity going into the process.

We use the judgment of our elders on that as well. I think with their values and their experience, they're able to generally give us the advice that is necessary to either move forward or delay it, whatever advice they give us.

The elders' component within our dispute resolution process, in any dispute, is so much needed, as they are keepers of our values and our traditions.

Mr. Pat Martin: There isn't any kind of third-party arbitration. Are the findings binding? And what if the person won't cooperate with the finding? Is there some enforcement mechanism? How do you make people...? Let's say the ruling is that some money must change hands and one of the parties won't do it. How do you then enforce the ruling of the mechanism?

Mr. Ron Crowe: It talks about the actual capacity to enforce laws. At present, sometimes we don't have all the capacity to enforce that. Certainly, it would be unfortunate if somebody came to the table and then refused to accept that. We haven't crossed that point yet.

That's why I talked about the sincerity of somebody coming forward. At this point in time, the rulings have been favourable to all and have been accepted.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Hubbard.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Ron.

In the packet we received there's a document called Treaty Four Sectoral and Institutional Developments. My colleague Stan and I were looking at this, and it talks about all kinds of enterprises and then, as I listened, you seemed to talk about a very small staff. In this you talk about cattle feedlots, meat-packing, ethanols, trucking companies, and then you talk about urban needs and various social issues that you could address. I'm a little bit confused. Is there this big organization, or is this a vision that you have in terms of an organization?

With that, do you have a significant budget or income, or is this all hope more than reality?

Mr. Ron Crowe: A lot of what is reflected is partly vision, like the ethanol plants that we're attempting to be partners in, the livestock, and the trucking activities. Those are visions we have.

Most of the activities of the Treaty 4 governance model are things that are actually real right now, the tribunals, the tribunal training, the elders' council, the executive council, and all that. Those are all real.

Yes, it's a combination of both vision and reality, and I could probably go through page by page and show you which is vision and which is real. But those are mandates that we've received from our chiefs' forum to move forward on. I think that's the point that has to be made here, that these are mandates we've received and we're moving forward on them.

If you've followed the ethanol industry in Saskatchewan over the last little while, we are stepping up to be a major partner in that. As we have in the past, through pipeline developments in Saskatchewan or other fairly major industry-related initiatives, we are stepping up to the table and making sure we have the mandate from our chiefs' forum to participate in some of these major industries.

So everything on the governance side is real. Some of the economic things are some of the strategies and visions we have but are mandated by our chiefs' forum.

¿ (0950)

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Mr. Chair, it's probably beyond our mandate—

Mr. Ron Crowe: I'd like to underline one thing.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: I only have a few minutes. I would like to—

Mr. Ron Crowe: We don't have an adequate budget and we certainly do need more capacity, more human resources, more first nations people working in our area, so that we can deliver on a lot of these activities.

I had to make that point.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Ron, in terms of western diversification, in terms of aboriginal business strategies, do you have the ability and the resources to access those programs to develop some of your initiatives that you speak of here?

Mr. Ron Crowe: We are presently in negotiation right now with.... We do have experience, and we also draw upon the experience and capabilities of tribal councils that are part of Treaty 4. Our staff, FHQ, for example, have been largely involved in the developments so that there is some continuity and some support that is given to Treaty 4.

For the most part, our staff are really overworked. There are a lot of expectations upon them. Nonetheless, the requirement to produce results is there. We make do with what we have, based on the mandates we have.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Thanks, Ron.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Hubbard.

Colleagues, we have time for a one-minute question for each party that our guests can incorporate in closing remarks, but the choice will be yours if you wish to address it or not. I don't want to impose more time on you that would take away from your closing remarks. We have five minutes left.

Mr. Vellacott, do you have a one-minute question?

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I'm going to pass.

The Chair: Mr. Martin, do you have a one-minute question?

Mr. Pat Martin: What do you think the government should do with the First Nations Governance Act? Should it delay it, stall it, amend it, scrap it?

The Chair: Thank you.

Does anyone on the Liberal side wish to ask a one-minute question?

The closing remarks are therefore yours.

Just a moment. Ms. Karetak-Lindell has a question.

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: I'd like to know how many staff you have. You talked about the people who are working on this great initiative.

Mr. Ron Crowe: We have—

The Chair: We'll give you the floor for four minutes, and you may incorporate that into your closing remarks.

Mr. Ron Crowe: In answer to your question, the staff who are working on our activities vary in size from time to time. Our governance institute is headed by a staff of three. We do have part-time consultants. We also rely on the experience and knowledge of those who sit on the executive council to help us, guide us, and sometimes our political staff are actually the technical people as well. That's how we're able to bring it together. We rely on them based on their skills and experience.

The point I want to make right off the bat is that Treaty 4 is a collective approach that has built upon its successes, has built upon history, has built upon the alliance of the Cree, the Saultaux, and the Assiniboine Nations.

We have developed ourselves without a lot of resources over the last few years. We have positioned ourselves to take responsibility and step up to the plate to assume that role in governance, and we look at a collective approach. We look at a collective sharing of jurisdiction. We look at collective ways and means of delivering governance and providing for governance stability and governance in first nations in Treaty 4.

We build upon the successes through our institutions, through the Treaty 4 Governance Centre. I think that in itself is an accomplishment of working together amongst the Treaty 4 first nations, having a governance institute, having a governance centre, having a chiefs' legislative assembly, to be able to come together and work on collective issues, common issues, and receiving the mandates we have.

I think that is the main point we want to deliver here this morning, to build upon the successes and the history and the pride of Treaty 4.

Mr. Pat Martin: Do you have an opinion about Bill C-7?

The Chair: Order.

The final word belongs to our guest.

Mr. Ron Crowe: I would like to say this about the First Nations Governance Act and how it applies to Treaty 4 in particular. We have the sense that the federal government will press forward with this bill. Perhaps it does fly in the face of some of the activities that are under way in Treaty 4. I would certainly feel a lot more comfortable if we had a working relationship with the federal government that would provide us with the ways and means and the capacity to deliver on some of the vision we've set out in our governance process.

To take that a step further, I would really be comfortable if we had an exemption, as contemplated in the bill, so that we could move into serious discussions about a Treaty 4 approach to governance on behalf of the bands we represent and the citizens who are part of Treaty 4. So that's the direction we would like to go in. We'd like to build upon our successes. I think that some of the staff of INAC--hopefully, I'm not getting them in trouble--have looked at the Treaty 4 model, and they have found a lot of comfort in it and have been supportive of it. That being said, the federal priority at this point in time is the governance act. We would like that exemption in order to be able to concentrate on our own development without having to react to the imposition of another piece of legislation.

Those are my closing comments. I hope I've reflected your questions and observations. I look forward to any further discussions on this particular topic of governance.

¿ (0955)

The Chair: We thank you very much for an excellent presentation. It's evident that you're on top of your situation. You've put a lot of effort into it. It will be very helpful to the committee. Thank you.

Mr. Ron Crowe: Thank you very much.

The Chair: For those of you who have not presented to this committee and are not scheduled to present at a future time, we create an opportunity for spontaneous presentations. If you wish to make a two-minute presentation to the committee, you need only register with the table.

Is Tanis Fiss in the room?

We'll see if we can do the spontaneous presentations after this one.

I wish to invite to the table, from the University of Regina, John D. Whyte, professor and senior policy fellow, Saskatchewan Institute of Public Policy.

Professor, we invite you to make a presentation. We have 30 minutes together. Hopefully, you will allow time for my colleagues to ask questions. Please proceed.

Professor John Whyte (Senior Policy Fellow, Saskatchewan Institute of Public Policy, University of Regina): Thank you very much. I will start by saying it's a privilege to be here, and I mean that in a grand sense.

Representative democracy is a great achievement, and the sustaining of the role of elected representatives in the project of governance and legislation is one of the biggest challenges modern democracies face, as you probably know on a day-to-day basis. That this committee was formed to investigate Minister Nault's project to see whether it fits Canada's needs; that the committee has decided to travel the country listening to people even after all the consultations; that the committee has decided to think seriously about the issue, to address seriously and sincerely the question put by Mr. Martin at the end of the last session—“What needs to be done?”—is of course a tremendous endorsement of the value of representatives in a representative democracy, and it's a privilege to be part of that process.

I want to just say these are not merely bromides. This is a serious challenge of governance in our nation—not first nations governance, our public governance—and this committee is a model of engagement.

As for myself, I'm a constitutional lawyer and have been, clearly, for a very long time. One of the areas of constitutional law I have investigated is of course the state's relationship with aboriginal peoples—particularly the state's relationship with aboriginal peoples with respect to political power.

Secondly, I spent until very recently the previous five-and-a-bit years as the deputy minister of justice and deputy attorney general of Saskatchewan, and in that role I was in a sense in charge of a criminal justice system that was an aboriginal criminal justice system, at least to the extent of 75% to 80% of our efforts. It's not a happy statistic and it's not a happy circumstance, but I was put in the position of administering aboriginal criminal justice, and I want to say that we did it poorly. The question whether we did it destructively is a harder question, but we certainly did it poorly.

Behind that deep sense I had, and most people in this provincial department of justice have, about doing justice poorly in the sense of doing justice that does not produce social order, does not produce social health, does not conduce to social development—that's what I mean by doing poorly—most of the people in the department of justice feel—and I'm not speaking for them, by the way. I have left. I have to be more careful than I am being. That failure to produce social order, social development, stems from the political responsibilities and political structures of first nations and Métis villages and communities in this province and this nation; that we need to address the question of power in order to get to the question of social development, and that there is a close relationship between liberty and development, between self-determination, capacity, and moving forward socially.

That's my perspective.

In Canada at the moment there are serious challenges around first nations governance. Here is the source of these challenges.

First, there is an underlying appreciation that the colonialist heritage we have inherited has presented a massive social health and social development challenge; that this colonialist heritage includes the disempowerment of first nations of their capacities to construct social and political societies; and that this experience has robbed the first nations peoples of capacity, of hope, of a sense of how to move forward. So our colonialist heritage leaves us a legacy of trying to reconstruct a political arrangement in which social health may flourish.

À (1000)

Second, there is a rapidly growing constitutional appreciation of the entitlements of first nations people. I think the most dramatic case in this sequence of cases that began in 1973 with the Calder case is Delgamuukw in 1999, and it is a dramatic case because it recognizes generic rights for first nations people across the country.

That case and other cases—Marshall, Vanderpeet—have established clearly that first nations people have a constitutional entitlement to be self-determining in many ways: self-determining in terms of their trade practices; self-determining in terms of their economic activities; self-determining in terms of their social well being; and I believe, implicit in Delgamuukw, self-determining in terms of their governance structures.

So we have a constitutional underpinning to our relations with aboriginal peoples—first nations in particular—which is dramatically different from 30 years ago, dramatically different and dramatically more respectful of the integrity and the autonomy of our constitutionally recognized historic communities of aboriginal peoples.

Third, there is a change in governments—and I'm going to say there's a change in provincial governments—in dealing with first nations and aboriginal peoples, and that change can be summed up by an increased willingness to say yes.

Do first nations want to have a correctional facility? Our instinct is to say yes.

Do they wish to have tribal courts and tribal laws? I would be exaggerating to say our instinct was to say yes, but our instinct is not to say no and to begin to explore what that would mean and how that coordination could take place.

Do first nations want to have courts with a far better fit with the Cree population in northern Saskatchewan? Our instinct was to say yes and to fund it and implement it.

Do first nations wish to take over the problem of children at risk? The instinct is to say yes, and the Peter Ballantyne First Nation child and family services agency was created.

There is a willingness to say yes to self-determination with respect to the social challenges facing first nations. And that is happening on the ground in a huge way that I think needs to be appreciated in Ottawa, because it is creating capacity, self-confidence, and expectations with which, I may say, the FNGA does not easily accord.

Another change in our relationship is one that's produced this time by the federal agency, to give credit where it belongs. That is the creation of the office of the treaty commissioner. It has generated a re-formation of a partnership between first nations and non-aboriginal people based on the treaty relationship. That project in this province has been very active and has been very constructive of an understanding of inter-society relations that is duly respectful of the autonomy and the integrity and the capacity of each of the communities.

And then there are the developments around governments—this is my fifth point—that are Mr. Nault's concerns, and they are not trivial. They are about the capacity for good governance; the capacity for government to be democratically accountable, financially responsible, electorally well grounded, structured so as to be effective and to be empowered to do the things that need to be done. Mr. Nault has quite correctly recognized that the bands are not well-positioned to move forward into the age of self-government, and in his April 18, 2002, speech he talks about the FNGA as a bridge to the future.

I do not wish to minimize the problems of band government, although I have no first-hand.... I'm not a citizen of band government, so I'm not prey to whatever deficiencies there may be, and it's not up to me to talk about whether it is satisfactory or unsatisfactory. But I don't wish to minimize the fact that there are many first nation citizens who are less than fully satisfied with the political structure under which they live.

À (1005)

I think we need to recognize that first nations governments have two aspects that public government doesn't have. The first is that it takes place in very small communities with very long histories of relationship, and that is a governance nightmare. Secondly, first nations governance has an impact on so many aspects of their citizens' lives--housing and welfare, education, child protection, and social order--and it is so immediately involved in the feelings of worth and respect and well-being in a way that public government is not for the normal non-aboriginal resident of, say, Regina. Governance looms as an opportunity, but a threat and a mistake or a virtue in a way that the rest of us don't really understand.

So I think the tensions around governance on first nations are tensions that are, in some senses, deeply structural, and they do not relate to capacity, to honesty, to accountability, to transparency, to probity. But I don't want to deny that those elements of transparency, accountability, probity, and so on, are not a reasonable concern of Mr. Nault.

We want to move forward in this nation to a very much higher level of self-determination for first nations people, and we will move forward only when there is confidence in that government, confidence in that government by the citizens of first nations, and we need to do those things that will construct that confidence in first nations governments.

Actually, I'm not very interested in Mr. Nault's confidence in first nations governance, but I am interested in the citizens of first nations having confidence in their government.

I feel that the FNGA is a mistake, for six reasons.

First, it does replicate a pattern of imposed order, and it has in fact landed on the first nations community as the stripping away of the exercise of self-determination and joint participation in the design of a future relationship between first nations governments and their people. Much of the paper that has been handed out talks about that precise problem of the perpetuation of a colonialized practice being deeply, deeply destructive of capacity, power, and competence.

Second, it is not clear that the deficiency of the Indian Act in terms of certain powers needed cannot be corrected through amending the Indian Act. Furthermore, it is not clear that the deficiencies of the Indian Act, of which there are plenty, cannot be avoided simply in the way that administration of government under the Indian Act has evolved grammatically and radically, notwithstanding textual changes. We may have a rule of law problem in the sense of bands going beyond the strict letter of law. It's not clear that we do.

What I am really suggesting is that there is an immense rhetorical difference between announcing a new governance paradigm, as Mr. Nault has--albeit he labels it a bridge to a better future--and dealing with the annoyances and deficiencies of the present regime, even though, in terms of the actual numbers of sections and in terms of the actual words, it may not be a huge difference.

I think the size and scale of the Nault program for restructuring governance has been one of its biggest mistakes and has created a moment in history that is represented as a turning point, but a turning point in which first nations leaders did not participate, were not adhered to, and were, in the end, overridden--which is a horrible step, one further horrible step in a long legacy.

Third, the First Nations Governance Act's redress mechanisms and its financial accountability mechanisms seem, in a sense, designed to fail. I'm not so sure about the financial accountability ones. I do want to say there is a gap between the function of a chartered accountant acting as auditor and an auditor.

À (1010)

This act talks about the chartered accountancy function, and as a sometime member of boards, I'd say, with all due respect and admiration for chartered accountancy, they certainly don't get to the heart of matters; they get to the accuracy of reporting.

There is in the later section, under financial accountability, an opportunity to move to the heart of the matters, the questions about the rationality, the proportionality, the basic responsibility of spending, but unfortunately, in subclause 10(3), it is a responsibility that is performed by the Minister of Indian Affairs. So in fact, FNGA does nothing to locate an independent structure for financial responsibility in something that is a little bit detached from DIAND and a little bit more attached to the choices and the priorities of the community that is being served. I think that's a small defect with the act, but it's a gap.

I'm more concerned about the redress mechanisms in clause 11. It's too harsh to say they're designed to fail. They seem designed to fail because they place the control of the redress mechanisms back in the council, and they fail to construct what is, in almost every governance structure we know, the essential separation of power between those who hold power to administer on a day-to-day basis and those who hold the power-holders accountable for the integrity of what they've done.

Clause 11 does not create that distance, does not create that separation. It creates a strong linkage between the appointment of the person and the accountability of that person back to the band council itself. I think it will not work. I also think.... Well, I'll leave it at that.

Clause 11 fails to construct a meaningful form of political accountability.

Fourth, I think the First Nations Governance Act takes away the room for the ongoing process of developing all kinds of first nations projects in accordance with the cultural mandates of first nations. Let me put it this way. There is no doubt a high capacity in first nations to govern, and there has been historically, with respect to issues of trade, security, public order, care, and distributive welfare.

I'm not suggesting that we go back and create governance museums of old-style first nations governance, whatever it was, but I am suggesting that concepts of good governance are a cross-cultural phenomenon and the ideas of accountability, transparency, and acknowledgement of the source of your authority--whether it's divine, or for the people, or from wise elders, or something else. All these are all parts of good governance, the idea to acknowledge, to be accountable, to be transparent, and we know first nations have those traditions.

I'm not saying they're all up and ready to go, but I think the FNGA's problem is that it cuts short the process that is going on all over this country to construct basic elements of good governance on the basis of a decent cultural fit. The FNGA imposes some other limited--I would say, faulty--model and suspends the process.

Fifth, I think the FNGA may impede political development where it is most needed in this nation. You've just had a presentation by Mr. Crowe from Treaty 4, and that's precisely where political development is needed. It is needed in the development of regional first nations government, or tribal first nations government, or tribal council first nations government, because the challenges facing first nations governance cannot be dealt with on a first nations-by-first nations basis.

Furthermore, the big challenge in first nations government is to provide political leadership and governance to a population that is deeply mobile, moving back and forth constantly between city and first nations. If we want first nations self-determination, we need to find a way to allow first nations to have a governance role for urbanized aboriginal peoples.

That's the story in Corbiere; we need to recognize that first nations governance is caught up in identity, not in geography. The FNGA, notwithstanding its response to Corbiere, does not capture the developments that need to take place around tribal government.

À (1015)

Now, to be fair to the FNGA, there is a section that talks about consolidation and coordination. But my point is that the FNGA, with its mandate on accountability within first nations, its financial responsibility, and its two-year period to develop its own codes, is driving first nations political development back into first nations political structures at the very time when the political structures that most desperately need to be built are the tribal ones, in my view.

I'm not a first nations person and I shouldn't be prioritizing political goals for first nations. But from an outsider's point of view, the driving need is to create effective structures of government at a broader level, and the FNGA, I believe, is in the way.

Finally, first nations government is in trouble with the constitution, in my view. There are constitutional requirements with respect to first nations peoples that have been developed since 1973, most dramatically since the Guerin case in the 1980s and Sparrow in the 1990s. That case law is unequivocal about the power of the fiduciary duty, the limitations on the abridgement of inherent rights, the strength of the duty to consult, and there are recent cases from the B.C. Supreme Court and B.C. Court of Appeal about what that duty to consult means--a substantive duty to consult, meaning a duty to find a medium ground. It means get an agreement.

I think the FNGA risks failing the fiduciary duty test. I do not think it is clear that INAC, DIAND, Mr. Nault, or the Government of Canada has exercised its powers with respect to new government structures in a way that has fully accorded the needs, the desires, the aspirations, the good for first nations peoples.

I think that's controversial, and I'm not sure I'm right about it, but I think there is a risk.

Secondly, I think it abridges the duty to consult in the sense that although there was lots of consultation, the structures were not created--and I know laying blame in a broken relationship is a fool's game, but let me say it--the structures were not built to create confidence for participation by the first nations representative leaders. That's a defect in the process that is deep.

That's my sixth concern and those are my points. I'm sorry I've been much longer than I should have been.

À (1020)

The Chair: We have seven minutes left. We don't have time for a round that would bring out information.

What do you want? Let's do it quickly. In the House you get 35 seconds to ask a question, 35 seconds to answer.

Mr. Vellacott, a one-minute question.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Well, I just want to say I think you have the right balance here in acknowledging the hurts and injustices of the past and wanting to move toward the future. I always think that if we stay with a victim mindset, we just park in the past; we don't really help people heal and move on. So I commend first nations leaders who acknowledge the injustices of the past but then want to move on and proceed from there.

You had lots of things that drew my attention here. One of the things I did want to ask you was whether you believe the Canadian Human Rights Act or some form of that should apply fully to first nations people across our country.

The Chair: Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you very much for a very interesting brief. I wish we had more time, but I guess I'd ask you to use what little time we have left to comment on one of the themes from the Harvard study on governance. I think it was that good governance without true sovereign powers is about as likely to succeed as sovereign powers would without good governance.

In other words, the order in which we're addressing these two issues may have the cart before the horse.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Martin.

Mr. Hubbard.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Very briefly, on redress, in the last few days and again this morning we heard the opposite side of redress in terms of chiefs who felt they weren't being redressed.

Should this act incorporate some aspect of redress in terms of first nations that have complaints with people in DIAND or with other levels of government?

The Chair: Thank you very much.

My colleagues did an excellent job. We have five minutes for you, or you have five minutes for us, because we're here to benefit from your statements.

Prof. John Whyte: They did an excellent job. They asked questions of such magnitude that five minutes is less than enough.

First of all, Mr. Vellacott's question about the Canadian Human Rights Act touches on the deeper question--which I would be wise to avoid, given the time constraints--of the extent to which we can proceed with self-determination models and self-governance models and leaves behind a whole host of serious constitutionalized norms for governments, such as separation of powers, an independent judiciary, a prosecutorial service that is detached from political authority, an independent bar, human rights and charter of rights rights, and representative democracy with the certain standards of accountability to electorates and so forth.

It's going to be very difficult to move toward broader self-determination while imposing a replication of each one of those elements on first governments. I do think that as we move toward greater self-determination we would have to have interest-based negotiations about which of those basic constitutional elements is vital to the well-being of all Canadians.

It's true that we are our brother's keeper and we all have a well-being stake in how fairly we try people who are charged with offences. We all have a well-being stake in getting rid of discrimination in hiring, and that extends to what happens in aboriginal communities and first nations communities too.

So all I'm saying so far is it's a deeply troubling question, because I do think the sovereignty and autonomy claim behind aboriginal self-determination needs some slack for constructing their own mechanisms.

With respect to the Canadian Human Rights Act itself, rather than say it applies, I think we have to construct a regime of non-discrimination that creates purposes for qualification, for participation, for employment, and for benefits that recognize status. I'm not referring to the Indian Act status but simply in the generic way, status differences.

I do think that when we get a little mature in this we have to construct a standard of non-discrimination that recognizes what happens when you build an identity-based governance model. That's very vague, I know.

As for Mr. Martin's question on the Harvard study and Professor Cornell's work on development and freedom, I don't buy the idea that there has to be sovereignty before effective self-determination. In fact, I'm a ground up self-determination person, and that is that if the people of Pelican Narrows say that our high priority is dealing with children at risk and we agree to let go--and we let go of a lot of things--some standards with supervision, let go of our child protection operation and let it evolve in Pelican Narrows and begin to develop capacity, that's a form of self-determination. We hope that Pelican Narrows then very quickly says, “What about our social order problem? Can we begin to deal with that?”

I think--and I will quote the Harvard study on this--there has to be underlying it all a recognition that what is going on here is a constitutionally legitimate process of recognizing a sub-state political authority, and it is growing into place as it develops.

So in that way, as a bridge, the FNGA doesn't appall me as a sort of structure. It appalls me that it has come about in this way and that some of its provisions are defective.

By the way, very quickly on the Harvard study, the really important thing about the Harvard study, as far as I'm concerned, is that no social development, no economic development project that they looked at in America, had any real success in transforming society, in making social improvement, unless it was accompanied with real political power, self-determination with respect to priority, with respect to liberty, with respect to accountability and with respect to renewal. Where do we go next?

So the Harvard study's connection between fully recognized political authority over development and effectiveness development is very powerful in this nation and is a strong argument against colonialism and is a strong argument, I could say, against acts like this that say we're going to help you get it right so you can do good. I think we have to say, go out and try to do good.

À (1025)

Finally, on Mr. Hubbard's point about redress, whether I wish the act to be tougher or not is a hard question. What I really want--and this is answering Mr. Martin's question to Mr. Crowe--is for Minister Nault to withdraw this bill. It would be the kind of grand gesture of inter-societal respect that this country has never seen before. It would be wonderful.

Where would it leave us, though, and where would it leave first nation citizens, and where would it leave imperfect first nations politics? I'll tell you where. It would leave us with a scintilla of trust; some basis for constructing a new dialogue; some room for first nations to say “We know you're worried about accountability, and believe me, we are worried about accountability and democratic legitimacy too.” Let's work together to see if we can devise aboriginal, culturally appropriate accountability mechanisms and find a way to express that umbrella clause in the Indian Act that says these are recognized and in place. And remove the hammer. Everyone wants political accountability and responsibility. I know there are some who don't, some who like a bad situation, but let's assume the opposite.

I really want this act to be withdrawn, not fixed. Withdraw it and put accountability back on the agenda, with the knowledge that every serious first nations leader in this country also wishes to be a politically responsible actor.

À (1030)

The Chair: Thank you very much for an excellent presentation. It will be very helpful, there is no doubt.

Mr. John Whyte: Thank you.

The Chair: I now invite, from the Centre for Aboriginal Policy Change, Tanis Fiss, director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

We again have 30 minutes. We invite Ms. Fiss to make a presentation and hope it will allow time for questions.

Ms. Tanis Fiss (Director, Canadian Taxpayers' Federation, Centre for Aboriginal Policy Change): Okay, thank you.

The Chair: Allow me, if you would, to make a statement before you start. It won't come out of your time.

Anyone who might have come into the room in the last few minutes should know that after this presentation we will receive anyone who has not been scheduled to address this committee to make a two-minute spontaneous presentation. If you wish to do this, please register with the table and we will grant you that time.

I apologize for that, Ms. Fiss, and I ask you to proceed.

Ms. Tanis Fiss: Let me start today by thanking you for the opportunity to appear before the committee. Before I address the issues of accountability and how they relate to the First Nations Governance Act, I will provide the committee with a brief explanation of the federation and its newly created Centre for Aboriginal Policy Change.

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is a federally incorporated, non-profit, non-partisan, voluntarily funded citizens organization. The federation has offices in five provinces in Ontario and the west, including a federal office in our nation's capital.

The CTF was founded here in Regina in 1990 when the Association of Saskatchewan Taxpayers and the Resolution One Association of Alberta joined forces to create a national taxpayers organization. The federation advocates for lower taxes, less waste, and accountable government. For years, the CTF has challenged conventional wisdom as it has pertained to aboriginal policy and built the case for change.

Because no one was doing this work in the country, it quickly became apparent that a dedicated, issue-specific research and advocacy branch of the CTF was needed. In March of last year, the CTF opened the Centre for Aboriginal Policy Change in Victoria, British Columbia.

Not only is the centre a first for the CTF, it is the first of its kind in Canada, a full-time, permanent, and professional advocacy presence to monitor, research, and provide alternatives to current aboriginal policy. One of the first tasks of the centre was to develop a comprehensive position paper bringing work together that the CTF has done for the past seven years.

“The Lost Century: Moving Aboriginal Policy from the 19th Century to the 21st Century” was released last November. This paper shows that treating one group of Canadians differently, often with preferential treatment, is wrong, both morally and intellectually. For more than 130 years Indians have been segregated from Canadian society by the Indian Act. Fortunately, there are no legal or constitutional barriers to ending the exercise of federal jurisdiction over Indians. Just because the federal government has sole jurisdiction, it does not also mean that it must exercise it.

Therefore, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation strongly recommends, both in our position paper and here today, that the federal government begin the process of phasing out the Indian Act and policies of segregation over the next 20 years.

On the surface, the First Nations Governance Act would appear to be a welcome change, as it will allow band councils to move towards self-government by establishing new rules for band elections and financial accountability. However, as long as the Indian Act remains in place, the federal government will be attempting to build accountability and better governance on a crumbling foundation.

The federation advocates the phasing out of the Indian Act, and our recommendations today are in the spirit of advancing that cause. We believe a thorough review of the First Nations Governance Act will lead to the incremental gains required for the eventual elimination of the Indian Act.

Let me add an additional motive for being here today. Every office in the Canadian Taxpayers Federation receives calls from natives, many of whom are frustrated with their local council, but many who are frustrated with the Department of Indian Affairs as well. Some allege corruption, some incompetence, and all want change and greater accountability from their government. In other words, native Canadians are like any other taxpayers who, on occasion, become frustrated with their government.

We are pro-accountability. Accountability issues are what I would like to discuss with the committee. Specifically, I would like to speak to the following issues that the FNGA has not sufficiently addressed: the reallocation of funding currently being transferred directly to native band councils; the establishment of an ombudsman for aboriginal affairs; and the expansion of the current Auditor General of Canada's mandate to include native bands.

Currently, over seven billion federal tax dollars are spent each year on aboriginal affairs. Under the existing Indian Act, there is no requirement for native governments to reveal their financial records to their members, let alone to the federal Auditor General or to taxpayers.

The proposed legislation will require native governments to provide their audited financial statements to any person who requests a copy. This accountability is significantly better than what has been offered to taxpayers before, which was nothing.

That being said, this level of accountability is not enough. One possibility to improve accountability is to have native governments collect taxes in the manner that other levels of government collect taxes, through income taxes, property taxes, and a multitude of other measures. This would have an immediate effect on the size of government on reserves, which is unreasonably large in comparison to non-native communities of similar size.

À (1035)

For example, in the year ending March 2000, there was one native politician for every 177 native citizens. These politicians earned salaries and honorariums of approximately $91 million tax free. Furthermore, the entire funding structure and whether federal payments should be directed to band government and their chiefs or to the individual band members for whom this support is needed must be considered.

Different arrangements may be required. For example, if the federal government withheld money from a cheque directed to an individual native and so noted that on the cheque, that could then be transferred to the native government in question. That alone would inject better accountability into the system than now exists. After all, it works to a degree for municipal, provincial, and federal governments. As the French Finance Minister Colbert once remarked, the art of taxation consists of plucking feathers from the goose with the least amount of hissing. So reserve governments should be subject to the discipline of hissing taxpayers. That could gradually reduce the excessive size of government on reserves.

Rearranging federal transfers to individual native Canadians will not reduce dependency. It would, however, be a small step forward in the provision of greater freedom of choice and personal responsibility. It would be up to the individuals to decide what types of services their local government would provide with their tax dollars. Individual natives might wish for their band governments to improve housing or sewage, rather than continue to subsidize local businesses.

The process of individuals deciding which services they wish to receive over others would provide natives with a greater sense of responsibility. Merely providing public access to native band audits, as outlined in the governance act, would not adequately increase the level of accountability. In order to increase the level of accountability on reserves, the payments currently transferred to native band councils should be redirected to individuals. The money necessary for native governments could then be taxed back by the local native governments.

As mentioned earlier, every office in the federation receives calls from natives, on occasion, frustrated with their local council or the Department of Indian Affairs. Earlier this year, members of the Alexander Band of Alberta protested in their band council office, alleging mismanagement and lack of accountability from their band council. This demonstration took place after these members raised their concerns with their local band council and with the Department of Indian Affairs. According to the demonstrators, the band council ignored the allegations of mismanagement.

Frustrated by the lack of response received from band council, some members of the Alexander Band raised their concerns with the Department of Indian Affairs, only to have the department inform them that it was a band council decision and something they should bring up with the council. The concerned band members are thus caught in a vicious circle, with little hope of redress in sight. Unfortunately, this is not an isolated incident.

An ombudsman for aboriginal affairs needs to be established. The ombudsman would have authority to investigate complaints and propose changes to be made in a band's administrative practices or the administrative practices of the Department of Indian Affairs. If the band or the department failed to make those changes, a report would be brought before Parliament.

The Governance Act does not sufficiently address situations similar to the ones faced by the Alexander Band members. To properly ensure appropriate redress for allegations of mismanagement, an ombudsman for aboriginal affairs must be established.

The Auditor General of Canada is an independent audit office serving Parliament and Canadians and is widely respected for the quality and impact of its work. The auditor promotes accountable government and ethical and effective public service, good governance, sustainable development, and the protection of Canada's legacy and heritage.

The Auditor General's office is able to achieve its goals by conducting independent audits and studies that provide objective information, advice, and assurance to Parliament, governments, and Canadians by working collaboratively with legislative auditors, federal and territorial governments, and professional organizations. Unfortunately, once the federal government transfers tax dollars from the federal department to the native bands, the Auditor General of Canada no longer has the authority to audit how and where the money is spent. Having no checks and balances fosters inefficiencies, redundancy, corruption, and even abuse.

If the ultimate goal is to eventually have all Canadians treated with the same rights and responsibility, regardless of race, which the Canadian Taxpayers Federation believes is the case, then creating another separate office of the Auditor General may not be the best route to achieve the goals or the best use of tax dollars.

The expansion of the existing Auditor General's mandate to include native bands would not require as many tax dollars to operate because economies of scale could be utilized, and the standards of audits, mandates, and scrutiny would remain consistent. The audits would uncover waste, mismanagement, and corruption, and would provide band members and taxpayers with an indication of the efficiency, effectiveness, and quality of service being offered on reserves.

The governance act states that native band financial statements will be audited by an independent auditor and made public.

À (1040)

To ensure consistency, the Auditor General's mandate needs to be expanded to include native bands. This is imperative for true accountability and transparency to occur. The expansion of the Auditor General's mandate will ensure that native band governments have their audits conducted in a similar fashion as the federal and provincial auditors conduct their audits of government departments and programs.

Before concluding my statement, I would like to encourage the committee to press for further amendments to the Indian Act that will lead to its eventual elimination. It's only through the elimination of the Indian Act that all Canadians, native and non-native, will be treated with the same degree of equality and enjoy the same rights and responsibilities. It is regrettable that the governance act merely props up the paternalistic Indian Act. As long as legislative changes result in the continuation of the Indian Act and native bands continue to receive federal government handouts, the legal straitjacket that prevents native Canadians from assuming all the rights and responsibilities allowed Canadian citizens will remain firmly fastened. Good governance, accountability, and transparency are minimal requirements for native communities to thrive. In addition, for native communities to compete successfully within the Canadian economic mainstream, the Indian Act must be phased out.

In conclusion, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation believes that all Canadians are fundamentally alike. Therefore, all legislation and government policy must be based on fairness and equality, not ethnicity. As former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau once stated, “the time is now to decide whether the Indians will be a race apart in Canada or whether they will be Canadians of full status”. In other words, the time for equality is now.

I thank the committee for my opportunity to speak, and I welcome any questions they may have.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Colleagues, we'll now have a five-minute round.

Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Thank you, Tanis, for being here.

I want to get my questions in. I hope you'll respect the fact that I have only so much time. If I could get fairly direct answers, I'd appreciate that.

This is a question I've asked other presenters today. As things stand, first nations do not have the full protection of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Do you believe they should have that protection?

Ms. Tanis Fiss: Yes, I do believe that native Canadians deserve the protection of the Human Rights Act. There have been many allegations on reserves. I have received telephone calls, particularly from aboriginal women, who unfortunately do not get employment on the reserves based simply on their gender. The Human Rights Act will actually protect individuals, such as the ones who contact the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. We do believe that should be extended to native government.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: In respect of the ombudsman, Tanis, to pick up on some of your comments, I'd like to see your proposal. Perhaps we already have a copy somewhere. We're going to get a look at the FSIN proposal. Does your proposal talk about it being a national or regional body with powers of investigation and some powers in terms of sanction and strictures, and also being independent? I think Bill C-7 has a major flaw in that it's asking for the chief and council on every reserve to appoint an ombudsman. If they're the ones being investigated, there would seem to be a conflict of interest there.

À (1045)

Ms. Tanis Fiss: We believe the position of ombudsman for aboriginal affairs should be established regionally. It should be done at the provincial level as well as at the territorial level. It should be independent, and it should report to Parliament. Therefore, it will not have the problems that exist under Bill C-7, where it's the band council basically investigating itself. We believe that an independent body needs to investigate allegations of mismanagement, corruption, and nepotism.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Some first nations people have mentioned a rather interesting concept. It's having payments directed to individuals in the bands. Then you don't have local leadership having as much control over the lives of individual band members or even using it as a means of intimidation. We've heard tragic stories where the threat of withdrawing benefits was used to coerce or intimidate people to vote for them. What kind of support does it have? Do you think there's broad support for that kind of thing?

Ms. Tanis Fiss: Since the creation of the Centre for Aboriginal Policy Change in March of last year, we have been working quite closely with the First Nations Accountability Coalition. They are in agreement with our recommendation on the reallocation of funding because it empowers the individual native. It will allow the natives themselves to hold their government to account and to reduce the excessive size of government.

I believe that a woman by the name of Verna Soto appeared before the committee on Monday. She is a member of the First Nations Accountability Coalition who I work with, along with Meaghan Walker-Williams, who is a band member of the Cowichan Tribe in British Columbia, and Leona Freed, who is in Manitoba.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I heard a suggestion the other day that Elections Canada should have first nations personnel supervising and monitoring elections instead of the department or RCMP or others, if it gets beyond this Auditor General thing.

Some people are nervous about growing government departments, but do you have any comments with respect to Elections Canada--with a first nations department, or a subset, if you will--having first nations supervising elections across Canada?

Ms. Tanis Fiss: Whether it's Elections Canada or the provincial elections offices, as long as they ensure adequate elections and that rules and accountability and transparency are upheld and that there is no vote buying, which unfortunately the media has reported all too often has happened, whether it be in Atlantic Canada, the prairie provinces or in the territories--that does seem to be a problem on some reserves.

Having an independent body such as Elections Canada or, when it's provincial elections, officers overseeing that would definitely be a positive step forward.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Martin, five minutes.

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

Ms. Fiss, I disagree with most of what you've put forward. I think we should make it clear that the Canadian Taxpayers Federation represents some taxpayers, those who choose to belong to your organization, and that you're not.... You don't say you speak for all Canadian taxpayers, surely, because--

Ms. Tanis Fiss: We speak for our supporters, that is true.

Mr. Pat Martin: Yes. We should narrow that down for the record.

The one issue about the Auditor General getting involved.... Recently the Auditor General did come to the public accounts committee, where I also sit as a member, and said that first nations communities are over-audited as it is, that no other institution in the country has to fill out and present the type of documentation that they do for the meagre resources they get.

In fact, 168 individual forms, audits, and documents per year have to be filed. If any one of those is not filed on time, because of administrative capacity or whatever on the reserve, they can wind up in arrears or in co-management or under disciplinary action.

So I would challenge the idea that...first of all, I would challenge the basic premise that, based on isolated incidents of mismanagement, you can cobble together a case that there's such widespread abuse that we need to impose a whole new regulatory regime in such a colonial and Eurocentric fashion.

I guess I'd ask you to comment on where you get the legitimacy and the justification to say you're going to walk into Indian country and dictate to them how they should govern themselves in the future, based on isolated anecdotal information from a few disgruntled citizens in a few communities across the country.

À (1050)

Ms. Tanis Fiss: Mr. Martin, you've brought up several points. I am aware of the Auditor General's report that was released last fall, and Ms. Fraser did state that there are cases where 168 reports must be filed to the major four federal departments.

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation would like to see the reporting process streamlined. We would also like to ensure that the data is actually used, because within those 168 reports, quite often that data isn't even looked at, let alone evaluated, to determine whether or not the programs and services being offered are being effective.

Mr. Pat Martin: It is misleading in your testimony to say audits aren't produced, and under your vision of how things should be, audits would finally be produced and that band members could see the audits, when 96% of all first nations submit their audits on time and without incident. Of the remaining 4%, many of them are tripped up by the sheer bureaucratic nightmare they have to deal with in filing 168 documents.

So I challenge the basic premise of the allegation that there's widespread corruption or incompetence in communities that warrants the intervention of the European, Eurocentric, and right-wing taxpayers federation.

Ms. Tanis Fiss: It's unfortunate, Mr. Martin, that you misinterpreted my words. I did not actually say that--

Mr. Pat Martin: I can read between the lines pretty easily.

The Chair: One moment. There's an attack. I will allow a response. Otherwise--

Mr. Pat Martin: I wouldn't call it an attack. It's an exchange.

The Chair: It is--

Mr. Pat Martin: I only have four minutes.

Ms. Tanis Fiss: It is unfortunate that you misinterpreted my words here today. I have not said--

Mr. Pat Martin: Well, I think I understand the position---

Ms. Tanis Fiss: I have not said that aboriginal community governments do not present their financial audits.

The concern of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation is that those audits do not have an independent audit conducted and those audits are not made public. That is why we would like to see the mandate of the Auditor General of Canada expanded to actually conduct those independent audits on the financial papers.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Martin, we have one minute left.

Mr. Pat Martin: I guess I would ask about your basic premise. It's a basic tenet in civil rights that there is nothing more unfair than treating unequal people equally. It doesn't recognize the historic imbalance in the power relationship that exists between the Government of Canada and first nations. Maybe you could take a few seconds to explain your world view of what's equal about treating unequal people equally.

The Chair: In 30 seconds.

Ms. Tanis Fiss: Okay.

Equality and having equal opportunities for people does not mean that people are the same. Just looking throughout Canada, we have different ethnicities, cultures, traditions. But non-native Canadians are considered equal under the law and therefore to have the same rights or responsibilities. That does not mean we are all treated the same.

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is therefore advocating allowing native Canadians to be brought into that society, to have the same opportunities, choices, freedoms—with the responsibilities and obligations that come with having those choices and freedoms.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

This ends Mr. Martin's five minutes. I understand the Liberals will be sharing their time, starting with Ms. Karetak-Lindell.

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: Thank you.

Just clarify for me whether the Canadian Taxpayers Federation believes in section 35 and that I as an aboriginal person and other aboriginal people have certain rights.

Ms. Tanis Fiss: Based on the Canadian Constitution, it is true that aboriginal Canadians have certain rights that are constitutionally protected. When treaties are signed, those rights and the obligations contained within those treaties become enshrined in the Constitution as aboriginal and treaty rights. We recognize that at the federation.

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: How does that translate into the earlier comments you made about what should happen in the communities? From the comments you have made, I feel you are stating that we should extinguish our rights and become the same as every Canadian in this country.

Ms. Tanis Fiss: Not at all. At the federation we would like to see aboriginal communities decide for themselves how their governments and their communities are governed, as other Canadians do with their municipal governments, their provincial governments, and the federal government, which can be changed as society changes. We are opposed to constitutionally entrenched third-order types of government that cannot easily be changed as the society of those communities changes as time progresses. We would like to see them be far more flexible for communities.

À (1055)

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: But you were saying as a Canadian Taxpayers director that you wanted to make sure people on reserves were able to pay taxes and be in the same system as the rest of Canadians. To me, that is Canadian Taxpayers imposing a type of government on a group of people you just said have the right to govern themselves and decide. I see a bit of conflict there.

Ms. Tanis Fiss: Well, the mosaic in Canada is very interesting, as we have the different communities. But seeing that no one in Canada is going to go anywhere in the near future, we must live and work together and we must develop systems that are complementary towards one another. Whether it be sharing resources, sewage, or water, for example, with neighbouring municipalities, agreements must be made and systems must be in place to make sure it is a fluid exchange and that laws and regulations and contracts are all upheld at both levels; therefore, systems must be in place that are recognized.

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: Earlier this morning we heard, and yesterday we heard—I don't think you heard those—some of the very well-thought-out systems people have developed for their communities. You are making it sound as if those are non-existent, that people have not developed self-governing systems that work for themselves. As Mr. Martin was saying, your testimony seems to state that there is nothing out there that works.

Ms. Tanis Fiss: I'm sorry you got that from my presentation. At the Canadian Taxpayers Federation we assume there are governments in place, but we also assume there is room to improve or change or adapt. What we would like to do is give the individual native Canadian some choices.

The Chair: Mr. Hubbard, there's one minute left.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Thanks.

I have great difficulty with your presentation because it says we should give...if I look at the map of Saskatchewan and see what the first nations peoples have left of a province they once dominated...when you talk about sharing, it's difficult for me to really come to grips with what you're trying to tell us today.

You talk about giving each native person a cheque each year, and he decides what the band is going to get from it. We don't do that with anybody else in society. We have a health policy in this country, but they don't send our chairman or me a cheque someone's going to take and put into a pot and call back about. Education is another big part of their budgets. We don't do that with any other level of government.

I don't think you're being realistic, Ms. Fiss, in terms of what you're trying to say. I get your little booklet and I read it and so forth, but you have to look at things through other people's eyes. We don't do this to other people in this country with health, education, or the roads. There are levels of government that manage things for the collective good of everyone, and this bill is for the development of some system that will be for the good of all. As white people, we can't tell others--

The Chair: Mr. Hubbard, your time is up, but as I did with Mr. Martin, I will give an extra minute for a response because there's been a direct attack.

Ms. Tanis Fiss: Non-native Canadians pay the taxes that build the hospitals, the schools, and the roads and that also go to native band councils.

What we're saying is, rather than directing that money directly to the native band councils, give it to the individual native Canadian so the native band council can then tax their people in a way similar to what the provincial, federal, and municipal governments do. This will then empower the individual native Canadian.

As I said in my presentation, that will not reduce the dependency on the federal transfer payment. However, it will lead towards better accountability, better governance, and transparency.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation, and thank you for accepting our invitation.

Colleagues, we have three individuals who will make a spontaneous presentation.

Before we go to that, I'll give my ruling on yesterday's point of order. I've reflected on it. First of all, there is no such thing as a point of order in a public hearing because we're not subject here to the rule of order. We're not subject in a public hearing to Marleau and Montpetit, Beauchesne, or Bourinot. What you should be calling in committee, something I would accept, is a point of privilege. I don't feel there was a privilege that was denied to any member yesterday by the comments I made, and I feel it is the responsibility of the chair to clarify issues when I feel someone is inadvertently or intentionally being misled. That's my ruling for yesterday.

We will now proceed to spontaneous presentations.

Á (1100)

Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Chair, I have a point of privilege. Can we speak to your point of privilege? Is it in order?

The Chair: If you wish.

Mr. Pat Martin: My only comment would be that it isn't the role of the chair, I would argue--and I'd ask for a further ruling--to correct witnesses, even if you see that there might be a factual error in what the witness says. It shouldn't be your role to interrupt them and correct them, because that can lead to editorializing. They have a right to be wrong, if you will, and I don't think it's the role of the chair to intervene at any time during a witness's presentation to say, that's not accurate, your view of the bill is not quite correct, that's not what the minister said, or any number of the things you have been intervening on. I'd ask for further clarification on what the correct--

The Chair: I will respond to that.

When I say that there's a situation for a point of privilege, I'm speaking of members of Parliament. When a member said to a witness that his competitor in business would be able to come into his office and look at all his books, I judged that it was misleading and I corrected it, and I stand by that. If you wish to challenge me further on this, get the support of your colleagues or address it to the Speaker of the House. That is my ruling and I'll live with it.

I now call upon Walter Pelletier to make a spontaneous presentation of two minutes.

Mr. Walter Pelletier (As Individual): Good morning. My name is Walter Pelletier, and I am a residential school survivor. I'm from the Cowessess First Nation.

I'm not sure if a lot of you people here understand that we've lived under rules for everything. We're one of the most ruled peoples in the world, I think. We have to live under federal, provincial, municipal, and band governments, boards, and everything else. Whenever we try to do something, even own a house on our own land, it's forbidden. You can't do it. Now, who around here can't own their own house on their own land?

If we want to start a business, we can't start a business because the mechanisms aren't there for us to be able to do it. To listen to you, where you're putting more rules on us, well.... Try to put some rules in place that are going to allow us to be able to go out there and make a decent living for ourselves, not where we have to depend on Indian Affairs to give us a house or where we have to depend on the government to give us money. Let us make our own money. Let us determine our own way to live. We can do it. Just let us do it.

From what I hear here, you're just making more rules to keep us down there again and not let us be economically sufficient and able to look after ourselves on our own land. Even when I say “our own land”, what does that mean? As far as I'm concerned, the federal government owns the land we're supposed to own. We don't even own that.

Á (1105)

The Chair: Thank you very much. It was well said and you made an excellent point.

I invite Ms. Connie Deiter for a presentation; you have two minutes.

I note that you have provided us with a document. The document will be translated and shared with all members of the committee.

MS. Connie Deiter (As Individual): I've been told it's been copied incorrectly, but I've also been told that you're intelligent people and you can see that some of it doesn't flow as well as it should.

Actually, I won't bother reading from it. I just want to make a few points. I'm a first nations woman and a member from the Peepeekisis First Nation. I'm also the daughter of Walter Deiter, who made a similar presentation in 1969 on the red paper when the white paper came out, so I find it rather ironic that I should be sitting here making a similar presentation.

I teach at the university. I have a BA from Osgoode Hall and have completed a master's degree from the University of Alberta in oral history. I like to consider myself, I guess you'd say, an activist.

I'm very much concerned about the First Nations Governance Act for a number of reasons. First of all, in terms of accountability, certainly none of us can argue that there have not been any flagrant abuses happening within our first nations leadership with regard to how the money is being spent. As a matter of fact, as a band member of Peepeekisis, I have requested financial statements on a particular enterprise our bands have gotten involved in.

The Chair: Excuse me. I don't like interrupting, but does it bother you that the cameras--

Ms. Connie Deiter: No, that's fine.

The Chair: I apologize, and I'll give you more time for that.

Ms. Connie Deiter: Oh, goody. That's great.

I too have run into the same difficulties of getting some accountability back from the Department of Indian Affairs, as well as from my band. So the accountability provisions I'm in full agreement with. But I question whether the RCMP has not been standing at our borders with their eyes closed.

These are flagrant fraud cases in many cases. In our particular situation, $18 million is lost from the five bands for the File Hills Qu'Appelle Tribal Council—on an Internet adventure, I guess you'd say. So yes, I believe there should be some calls for accountability. But again I question why.... Perhaps an inquiry should be in place, as they're doing with the SPUDCO situation here in Saskatchewan, regarding how that money was spent.

But there are other concerns that bother me. For instance, there are provisions that call for the powers of a band enforcement officer. I'm concerned that this individual doesn't need a warrant to enter into any place on the band's reserve. There's a mention that they can't go into living quarters. Does that mean individual offices on the reserve, like the one I wrote this particular piece in?

There's also a duty to have anyone assist the enforcement officer to help him or her carry out their duties. Does that mean my kookum who's babysitting the kids that day has to carry out my computer? What happened to unreasonable search and seizure under the charter?

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Ms. Connie Deiter: How much more time do I have?

The Chair: I've given you three minutes.

Ms. Connie Deiter: Oh, rats. Let me make one more major point.

The Chair: Make it in 15 seconds.

Ms. Connie Deiter: Okay. I don't believe there is a provision in place that preserves first nations culture and language. I think there should be a stronger statement. It says under the FNGA the preservation of culture and language of the band, because of Bill C-31, and the introduction of band membership codes through 6(1) and 6(2) of the—

The Chair: Thank you very much. This is my last thank you. But we have your document and we will make sure everyone gets it. Thank you.

I invite Hugh Poorman to make a presentation. We welcome you to make a two-minute presentation, and I'd like to ask you before we start, if the camera comes in, do you prefer that—

Mr. Hugh Poorman (As Individual): As long as it doesn't make me look fat.

Á (1110)

The Chair: I wish I could use that line, but they can't do a thing for me. You get an extra minute for that one.

Mr. Hugh Poorman: Thank you very much.

I would like to start off by saying that the implementation of this First Nations Governance Act without getting 100% participation of each member—man, woman and child—of the Anishnabe Nation members of Turtle Island is in direct breach of the royal instruction from the Royal Proclamation of 1763 and the British North America Act. To consult is not to consent. I am not giving my consent for this act to go through.

There are three fundamental elements in being a sovereign nation. The Anishnabe Nation of Turtle Island has all three: language, culture, and land. After the bankruptcy of Canada in 1933, Indian Affairs turned into Canada. There should be a trustee and beneficiary relationship between my nation and what is known as the federal governing structure of Canada.

The Indians owned the land, and the land is held in trust by the Crown of Great Britain, as evidenced in the Royal Proclamation, the British North America Act's section 109, and paragraph 25(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982. I have been made a prisoner since the early days of my discovery. I have been sentenced and stripped of my dignity by deceit, my language and culture taken by ignorance, the land confiscated by greed. I was surrounded by an invisible wall that was built on injustice, confined to limited boundaries created through misunderstandings, constantly guarded by promises and lies.

Yet through all my turmoil and frustrations, my spirit will not cease to be what I was nor what I was meant to be. A part of this land is what I was; a native Indian is who I am.

I'd like to thank you for this opportunity to speak with you.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your excellent presentation. If you have documents that you want to share with us, leave them with the clerk and they will be translated and distributed to all members, even those who are not here.

Mr. Hugh Poorman: Thank you.

The Chair: I call now on Keitha Kennedy to make a presentation. This will be our last presentation.

Ms. Keitha Kennedy (As Individual): Good morning. My name is Keitha Kennedy. I'm from the Carry the Kettle First Nation. Unfortunately, I've lived off my community for about 30 years now.

Regarding this First Nations Governance Act, there are some good qualities that we can benefit from with regard to accountability and transparency. But with respect to that, if the Department of Indian Affairs wants first nations communities to be accountable and transparent to the membership and to the rest of Canadian society, then I think the Department of Indian Affairs needs to take a look at themselves and take a lead role in portraying what accountability is, and for the department to be more accountable to the first nations people.

One thing I've been doing is really looking at the United Nations with respect to the indigenous peoples forum. One of the priorities being worked on right now for the indigenous peoples issues is the recognition of the right to self-determination as expressed in articles of the Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, including the right to identity, territory, land, and resources.

We've faced many roadblocks placed in front of us by the federal government, and they're going to continue to put roadblocks in front of us. I believe some day we will be successful in self-government and self-sufficiency, and a lot of our first nations leaders are working in that direction today.

It's good to see that the new leaders that are coming up are looking more at the world society, not just what has happened here in Canada. I think that's what's important, that we are now a global society. We're no longer just Canada. For the indigenous peoples of this country, being recognized and being heard at the United Nations or in a world court is going to benefit us in many aspects.

With regard to this First Nations Governance Act, since the time of the inception of the Indian Act, the federal government has made changes to it, not to benefit the first nations people but to benefit the federal government.

I'm thankful to have this opportunity to speak to you. This forum was supposed to be for the first nations people in the communities and to give us two minutes each. You're not hearing what we need to say. We can't say what we have to say in two minutes. So I don't believe we are being given our equal right to have this input into this First Nations Governance Act. The grassroots people need to have more input into this matter.

Á (1115)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I will say that we spent $100,000 to advertise our meetings, to invite people to present, and those individuals who did indicate an interest in presenting were given 10 minutes.

This is something we accepted to do in addition, to open it up. I haven't been on a committee that had an open forum like this at the end of the agenda. We're being criticized for the two minutes, but I would hope we would be appreciated for at least opening up at the end in an effort to touch as many people as we can.

In two minutes you said a lot of good stuff that will be helpful. Thank you.

Ms. Keitha Kennedy: Thank you.

The Chair: We will now adjourn the proceedings.