[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, March 13, 1997
.1259 
[English]
The Chairman (Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.)): Order. We will resume the consultation process on Bill C-79, an act to permit certain modifications in the application of the Indian Act to bands that desire them.
The first group, from the Treaty NWT 8 Tribal Council, with Chief Jonas Sangris, did not show up. That time has elapsed.
.1300
We now welcome, from the Dene Nation, Chief Bill Erasmus.
Apparently Jonas Sangris is there, so we'll combine both in this presentation. Is that what we will be doing?
Chief Bill Erasmus (Dene Nation): Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Chief Bill Erasmus here, from the Dene Nation. There might have been a mix-up in the time. I have with me Chief Jonas Sangris, from the Yellowknives, who are part of the Treaty 8 first nations. I also have Chief Joachim Bonnetrouge with me, from the community of Deh Gah Got'ie, who are part of the Deh Cho First Nations.
We were told to be here at 11 a.m., so there might have been some mix-up.
The Chairman: Chief Erasmus, what we have now before us is your allocation of time. Do you wish that we allow more time and have the three of you present together? Is that acceptable to you?
Chief Erasmus: Yes, it is, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: That's quite acceptable to us and we appreciate that.
Therefore we have before us, from the Treaty NWT 8 Tribal Council, Chief Jonas Sangris; from the Dene Nation, Chief Bill Erasmus; and from the Deh Cho First Nations, Chief Joachim Bonnetrouge.
Normally we have forty minutes for a presentation. I think in this case we'll allow as much time as you require. I'm sure you will be satisfied with the amount of time allocated.
The time is yours. I would wish that you would allow some time for questions from members.
I should mention, Chiefs, that I'm Ray Bonin, chair of the committee. I have with me, from the Bloc Québécois, Claude Bachand, and from the government side John Murphy.
Please start your presentations at your leisure.
Chief Erasmus: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Maybe I'll make some remarks, then we'll ask Chief Sangris and Chief Bonnetrouge to make some remarks also. Then if you have questions we'll try to answer them.
First of all, thank you for this opportunity to speak to you. There are a number of issues we would like to address. You should have with you a letter from myself addressed to the Prime Minister and dated December 11, 1996, about the proposed amendments to the Indian Act.
The Chairman: Some of us may not have it here, but we did all receive it.
Chief Erasmus: Thank you. Just for the record, I want to make comment on some of the correspondence. There's also a letter dated December 11 to the Minister of Indian Affairs, Mr. Irwin. Also, there's a letter I sent to yourself as chair on March 3.
In each of those pieces of correspondence we bring up concerns that the proposed amendments are reflective of the government's way of dealing with our people. To make it short, we're not pleased with the process.
What I mean is that in the north we are still people who are of the land. We are free people. We're not placed on reservations and we are not prevented from living the way we've always lived, although there are a lot of obstacles before us. There are proposed diamond mines now. Major development is being proposed in our land areas. Other activities are taking place.
.1305
We as first nations are engaged in discussions for the most part with Canada, and we're trying to set up a better system for the north, not only for our peoples but for other peoples that live here and for the country as a whole. So we're getting into a systematic way of dealing with Canada. Basically it entails sitting down, talking, and working things out the way our original treaties were put in place at the turn of the century, 1899 and 1900, and also 1921.
The reason we have difficulty with this legislation is that when we approached the department to come north some time ago, they rejected doing that. The closest they came to our communities was Edmonton. That's approximately 900 miles from Yellowknife, in a totally different jurisdiction.
The message we'd like to give to you is that we haven't had a chance as leaders or community people to talk about the amendments. We have not had a chance to reflect on what's being proposed. As I say, we are not on reservations; we live on our own lands and we have invited other peoples to live with us. We would like to take a good look at not only this but a whole number of other pieces of legislation that are coming forth and will most likely be imposed upon us.
In line with what the royal commission report is saying, we'd like to start a bilateral process where Canada sits down with our people and we plan together what the future is going to look like. The report makes it very clear, dealing with the Indian Act, that it is a comprehensive and very important issue that doesn't only affect our people but affects everyone because of the spin-offs, and Canada should not be tinkering with minor changes or some changes that only affect certain parts of the country.
For example, if we were to look at it, because our people are not on reservations and because the Indian Act is specific to taxation applying only to reservations, we pay taxes to the country called Canada and we have always done that. In our treaties, written right into the preamble, Treaty No. 8, on page 6, makes reference that we are not to pay any taxes. If we were to look at the Indian Act, we would like to look at that tax section, but Canada has purposely stayed away from that.
So we would like to start a dialogue, but that has to happen in our communities. It's not between individuals like you and ourselves. That's what we'd like to get across to you.
The March 3 letter that I sent to you indicates that having the videoconference like this may be a start of communications, but it's not nearly what is required. We need to sit down and talk it out so that we can plan together.
I think it's an opportune time, because the Liberals now are going into a new election. They haven't set the date yet, but there's an opportunity now to start on the right footing, as the red book indicated when they first got elected four years ago. We're open to that. As Chief of the Dene Nation, that's the message I would like to give you, Mr. Chairman.
The other chiefs would also like to make comments. Thank you.
The Chairman: Thank you, and please carry on.
Chief Jonas Sangris (Treaty NWT 8 Tribal Council):
[Witness speaks in his native language].
What I'm saying is we need better communication in our society because we're really concerned about some of the things Bill talked about, especially in our communities. We did receive letters, but there's not enough communication.
At the same time, I think there's a lot of obligation being eroded from our treaties with the government. For example, we used to have bus passes for our people being paid by the federal government, and now they've cut that out, that obligation from the treaty rights.
.1310
Little things like that have been happening. People are starting to worry about all those things. They've been telling us that if you go to the dentist all you get is an hour of cleaning by the dentist. That's health. Those are the things we're really concerned about. Some of our elders especially have been talking about it.
What Bill is saying is that you should come up north. It should be something like what happened with the Hamilton report on extinguishment. I think we need to do that, especially in the north. Come and we'll talk to you people about it and explain what it's all about and all the people in our community will know. It's very important. Those things have to happen. As the red book said, the priority for the next four years is supposed to be the aboriginal people. It's not happening.
Those are some of the concerns we have in the north. Stuff like that has to happen. I don't think today is consultation. I don't know why you use today as consultation. It's very important to come up north to talk to us across the table about what it's all about.
At the same time the programs are coming to our community, but with no money. We can't operate that way. That has started happening in the north too.
So there are a lot of things we should be talking about, such as abrogation; how the Indian Act has started to change on us. Our elders are starting to worry. It's not supposed to happen. They say we made treaty with the Queen.
Those are the things that are on our mind today. We have to sit down across from each other. Come north and explain it to us with our elders and sit around and talk about those things.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Now our next colleague.
Chief Joachim Bonnetrouge (Deh Cho First Nations): [Witness speaks in his native language].
I am saying I am glad to be here today.
It seems to me we are starting to communicate, but it seems we're in two different countries,Mr. Chairman. Unfortunately, the history of our people and the Government of Canada has not been that good.
Recently we have made a lot of effort to begin to negotiate our way into the Canadian confederation. The elders have told us many times that the younger leadership and the younger society in the north have to negotiate our way into Canada. We would like to be given the opportunity to do so. I really believe the time is right. We have the basis of the treaty relationship we have with Canada, and we have always respected that. A lot of people in my own community and in my region are prepared to start talking to Canada and to regain some kind of respect and to regain some kind of relationship with the rest of Canada.
.1315
I need to make this point, Mr. Chairman, because in the day-to-day affairs of our communities and with a lot of the changes our people have been going through, at times there is a lot of frustration within the leadership. We are not being taken seriously by the government officials, especially in the last eight to ten years. I believe the bureaucracy, the Government of Canada and the government officials have not taken the Dene seriously. I think part of this process would be to begin to turn this around and begin rebuilding that relationship we've always had. That's a point I wanted to make.
And coming from the Deh Cho region and the Deh Cho territory... The Deh Cho Dene would really like your committee to come up north to visit us. Let me suggest that before too long you come to one of our larger centres or to one of our larger communities. Then the rest of our people can meet you. I cannot stress how important this is. At least in one or two communities, then, people would have a chance to see the seriousness of the people that you represent. You are representing Canada to us. We need to get to a forum, especially in our own country and in our own territory, where your people come and visit us. I really extend that invitation to you and your committee.
Thank you.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, and thank you for those invitations. I know you are sincere. And I know the purpose of the invitation is that we all sit together in a positive manner in order to build a better future for all of us, and for all of you, of course.
I can say to you that I did have an experience in Whitehorse last summer. Before the bill on placer mining and quartz mining came to us I went to Whitehorse and spent close to a week there. It was a good experience. I certainly plan on doing it again and it would be beneficial if the committee could also do it, although I'm not in a position to promise you that. I can make the statement that it would be very beneficial. There's no doubt about that. I'm sure all members of the committee agree with that.
We will proceed to questions, starting with
[Translation]
Mr. Bachand on behalf of the Bloc Québécois.
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): I would like to heartily welcome the chiefs who are gathered here: Chief Erasmus, whom I have already had the opportunity to meet on several occasions, Chief Bonnetrouge and Chief Sangris.
I listened to your presentation very carefully. You did not dwell on Bill C-79, whereas the people who preceded you this week were, on the whole, very much opposed to it.
On the other hand, you spoke of making your own way within the Canadian federation. Several of the nations that have made presentations before the committee seemed to be saying that they would rather update the treaties that govern them. I know that you are governed by Treaty 8. For those nations, the best way of going about that would be to bring a number of issues up to date rather than modifying the Indian Act which, as you know, goes back to 1876.
Would the three of you clearly state whether you are totally opposed to Bill C-79 and if you had rather the federal government intensified negotiations in order to update Treaty 8.
I also have a supplementary question. I know that "Dene" means people of the land; I also know that the member of Parliament representing the people of the land is Ms. Ethel Blondin. Could you tell us whether you have contacted Ms. Blondin with a view to discussing Bill C-79.
.1320
[English]
Chief Erasmus: Thank you.
[Translation]
How are you, Mr. Bachand?
[English]
It's a pleasure to see you working hard there in Ottawa.
The last time we spoke, I think we were talking about the gun law, and we gave you some of our concerns. I think the message we're giving today is very similar: somewhere out there, 3,000 or 4,000 miles away, people are trying to make decisions for us, and they don't have the authority to do that. Without our consent, Canada does not have the authority to pass legislation or make policies or regulations that affect our lives. The gun law is something that's really going to affect us, and we can go on with a whole number of other pieces of legislation your government is looking at that are going to affect the Dene, but we have never given Canada the right to do so.
With our presentation today, we are saying that if you want to pass something that's going to directly affect us, then you are obligated by law to deal with us in an official way. Sending us correspondence, notifying us that something's going to be passed in Parliament, and asking us to speak to a standing committee is not due process.
What we're saying is that we're not here right now for the purpose of consultation. Chief Sangris said it very clearly: we don't see this as consultation. You can't use this method to say that our people have agreed to the process. Actually, we're here protesting the way in which Canada has chosen to deal with this.
On the other question on the treaty, we have to be very careful when we talk about the treaty. Our people say the treaties are there, there was an agreement, there was a meeting of the minds, and we do have a relationship with the crown. It was with England at the time, because Canada didn't have the authority to sign its own documents, but we need to clarify what happened at that time. Are we subjects of the crown or are we allies? We say that we're allies - we're supposed to work together - and that Canada doesn't have the authority to impose its laws on us.
So that is what our discussions are about. We do have self-government discussions going on with Canada in our respective communities, and we are clarifying our role with Canada, but we have to complement the two. Some of our communities have gone to an extent at which they're getting close to having governing documents that are going to clarify what that role is going to look like in future.
We're also trying to look at having a constitution in place. As you know, the Northwest Territories does not have a constitution, unlike the provinces. We're trying to deal with that in a way in which we get recognition and implementation of the rights that we do have when division of the Northwest Territories takes place in 1999. They are existing rights, but the problem is that we haven't gotten to the point at which they're clear and are put into practice. We're very concerned about that.
As I said earlier, the treaties are one thing, and they bind us together. We are like brothers with you. But the Indian Act, the policies, the regulations and the bureaucrats are in between the treaty and ourselves, so we need to clarify how we're going to live in the future. If the Indian Act is imposed on us even more, then it's going to affect us.
.1325
We've had legal analysis given to us on the document, but we really haven't had a chance to discuss it among ourselves. From our first opportunity to look at the document, it looks like Canada is trying to make our chiefs, our councils and our governing system into corporations. We have big concerns about that and a whole number of other things, but we haven't had a chance to even discuss this in our communities.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand: You have only answered my question in part. I was asking whether you had met with Ms. Blondin to discuss Bill C-79 with her. I know that she is the member for Yellowknife and the surrounding region.
[English]
Chief Erasmus: She is aware that we have concerns. We are aware that she sits on your standing committee, she and Jack Anawak, and it appears that they're not present this morning. That's unfortunate.
The Chairman: I will make a correction, if I may, Chief. She is not a member of our standing committee. Mr. Elijah Harper and Mr. Jack Anawak are members. Mr. Harper is here with us.
Chief Erasmus: Thank you. I stand corrected.
We have conveyed the message to Ethel Blondin-Andrew. She is a busy person, as you know, since she is part of the cabinet. She doesn't spend as much time as we would like on first nations issues because she has to answer to the general public. But having her there is sometimes to our advantage. At other times it doesn't help us. And you probably know Canadian politics better than I do because you sit in the House.
We're confident that Canada will hear what we're saying. We're not here to make an appearance because we want to be before you; we have a lot of other things we'd like to be doing. The message is that if you're serious about working with our people, come and talk with us. Otherwise we're going to be in a heck of a fight for the next hundred years, and if that's the case, we're prepared to do it.
As first nations citizens, we're obligated to protect our own interests and work with our people, and that's what we do on a daily basis.
We were born here in the north. We're not going to go anywhere else. This is where we're going to have our grandchildren and this is where we're going to be buried. We're not going to go away and this concern is not going to go away.
I don't know what you members are going to do after the election, whether you win or not. You go back to your businesses or back to whatever you do. You have different interests. You're not from first nations communities so I don't see you getting paid to work for our people. We have different interests, but we have an opportunity to work together.
The Chairman: Mr. Harper.
Mr. Elijah Harper (Churchill, Lib.): Thank you for those comments, Bill. I'm sitting here watching you on television.
As you know, I'm a member of the first nations community. If I may, I will correct you on that, because I don't know whether you know that I'm also a treaty Indian, a first nations member and an honorary chief for life in my community. I've been the chief and I've been involved in mainstream politics. I just want to say to you and to some other people who appeared before this committee that as a member of the first nations I of course encounter great difficulties in dealing with a lot of our issues in the House.
.1330
First of all, the institution in which I'm involved is not an aboriginal institution. So with a lot of the things we deal with, how we proceed on these matters doesn't necessarily fit in with our philosophy, our way of doing things. This is a non-aboriginal institution. There are different traditions and different laws and processes people who have come over to this land have adopted for centuries.
I've made it my point to be involved in this process. Of course I've had the privilege and honour of being elected not only here but also in the provincial legislature. I wanted to know how this process works, because we have to be involved, no matter where in the world. Whether it be in Parliament, whether it be in other institutions of this world or mainstream politics, we can't alienate ourselves.
I'm put in this forum, but sometimes I have great difficulty in trying to convey to our first nations people how the processes work here. There's sometimes misunderstanding of that. I know there is a general misunderstanding of the process, and of course because of our relationship with the governments there is total distrust. I think what I've done, at least in small part, has been to bring the people together to come to understand the process. We need to be involved.
For me the Indian Act has never been a source of our rights, not at all. As you have mentioned, many other people have said this Indian Act is an act that was passed by this non-aboriginal institution for administrative purposes. From all you have said, the Indian Act should have been an act that would have established a relationship between first nations and the federal government, not an act that totally dominates our affairs. That's why I heavily rely on nation-to-nation in the treaty process as a process to address these issues which you have indicated are the way to go. As a matter of fact, in order to protect the interests of aboriginal people and our first nations people, I've conveyed this concern to the Minister of Indian Affairs.
A lot of people don't realize we're not amending the Indian Act at present. There is no amendment to the Indian Act. What has happened is other legislation has been brought forward, stand-alone legislation, and in that particular legislation there is an opt-in provision. It's at the discretion of the first nations people. Of course there are problems in dealing with that. I don't want to get into it in detail. But there is an opt-in provision.
At the same time, there is a non-derogation clause saying that the treaty and aboriginal rights recognized within the Canadian Constitution, and also the inherent right to self-government, will not be affected, even for the people who may opt in or whatever. But a lot of people are generally hesitant about being involved in that process. To me that's one way of trying, as a member, to alleviate it. At least it's something that will not be totally imposed on the aboriginal people but rather a matter of choice.
I speak with a lot of experience, and I speak with confidence that our people will ultimately decide for themselves what relationship they will have with Canada. We have gone beyond the stage of feeling helpless. I think we are strong enough that we will make the correct decisions on all these choices that have been presented to us.
As I said, one of the reasons I've been able to involve myself in this process is my upbringing. I was born in the bush, not in a hospital, with the traditional teachings about having respect for other people, and also I have my identity and my language. So I am able to involve myself in the forum.
.1335
I can go anywhere in the world - I could be standing in the middle of China - and I'll always be who I am because it is our nations that will dictate who we are, not some other legislation in a foreign act. That's how much confidence I have in the people. Despite the fact that this legislation might go through, we are still able, within the complete authority and jurisdiction, at least, to determine who we are. That's why I don't hesitate for a moment and don't question the fact that we will continue to survive and exist as who we are.
I must say that I want to proceed on the basis you've mentioned, on the treaty basis, a nation-to-nation relationship. My goal has always been to achieve that when we go through many processes.
I chose to be involved in this process. I know I'm accountable to my constituents. As a matter of fact, the northern chiefs made their presentation yesterday from my constituency. We haven't had a presentation from the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs. I know they've passed a resolution to convey to the government that they make this piece of legislation optional. So it's continuing on along that line, because, in Manitoba at least, they have a framework agreement in process, which will establish the relationship on a nation-to-nation basis and will ultimately lead to the kind of relationship we want.
I want to say to you that even though I'm involved in this process, I continue to try with my ability to protect the interests of our people. I know the opposition Bloc would like to question the first nations in terms of our loyalty, but I believe the first nations will always determine their own destiny anyway. Part of the problem has been where the governments in this country have failed to honour their treaty obligations. The fact remains that the integrity and the dignity of our people will always be there, always negotiating in good faith.
The problem with the federal government, because they can't maintain their promise, may be not in a sense our problem as aboriginal people, but at some point they will have to be accountable and be responsible for the lack of honouring those treaty promises. It will come about at some point, whether it be in my lifetime or not. But as long as we maintain our own principles, our own beliefs, always be sincere and be honest... I think that's what has kept us to what we are today, and we'll continue to do so.
I sometimes feel uncomfortable, of course, in being involved in this non-aboriginal institution, being one of the few across this country, but that will never compromise our people. I truly say that to you as aboriginal people, as first nations people. But sometimes I have no control over the processes or what happens sometimes in this entire process. I'm one of the few people who may be involved in this process. I wish there were more people from our first nations communities involved in this process so that we could work collectively.
So I want to assure you of that and support you in your continued effort to get on the right track. Of course I'm also working behind the scenes to make sure this happens. I thank you for your presentation, and I did listen to you.
.1340
The Chairman: Thank you very much.
We will allow each one of you to make closing remarks, but I have a question first. It's something I'd like to get cleared up.
For three days now, the message has been given to us that there has been no consultation, there has been no contact. You've just told us that there are discussions on self-governance going on. I know there are negotiations going on at 150 tables at this time. I'm under the impression that there is dialogue and consultation, but the message that there is not was very clear for three full days. Can you help me with this? Is it true there are 150 tables of negotiation? Is it true that you, yourselves, are in discussions on self-governance? Or is what they're telling us in Ottawa not true?
Chief Erasmus: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think we can all make comments on that issue, and my first one is to Mr. Harper.
When we first started talking, it sounded like you weren't in the room, so we apologize. We recognize that you are there, and we're thankful for that. Whenever we see you - at least, whenever I see you - you're thought of as the member of the Manitoba legislature who stood up and said no to the Meech Lake accord. We remember that clearly. The people here at the table were all part of the leadership at that time. We still are. And if this continues in the way it is going, we do expect you to stand up and say no again. And if you have to use that feather, we ask you to do so, because I'm sure Prime Minister Chrétien will understand what it means.
The Treaty No. 8 chiefs are going to have their assembly in June, and they would probably be delighted to have you come up to visit them with good news on the Indian Act at that time. The Dene Nation assembly is later in August, and we invite you to come to that too. Also, Chief Bonnetrouge's people are going to be meeting in early July, and if you could come north at that time to speak to our people, we'd be pleased to talk with you.
I guess you feel comfortable because you're right in the system there. You see the documents and have the Liberal people on your side. You don't have to worry about confidentiality and all that kind of stuff. We're not privy to a lot of the things you are privy to.
In all sincerity, though, we don't have any reason to trust Canada. Every day there is something that prevents us from living the kind of life the treaties promised us. So it will take time for us to feel the comfort you may feel there, the comfort you get from living within that system. I'd like to say that our people will some day have comfort in Canada, but it is going to take some time.
Now, in terms of self-government discussions, there are some discussions taking place. The difficulty, though, comes from the fact that to date, people are still having discussions under Canada's policy of extinguishment. That policy has not been officially lifted. When people are at the table, Canada still tries to erode our rights. Canada uses the courts, uses legal jargon, uses every means possible to suppress our peoples. So we are at the table, but it doesn't mean we're making a lot of progress.
We were hoping that when the Liberals got in, they would live with the promises they put in the red book. They said they would get rid of extinguishment, that they would start a new partnership with us, and that we would work together. That's what we're looking for.
I can say that I have a little bit of an understanding because with the Assembly of First Nations I chair the committee of chiefs who are looking at amending the Indian Specific Claims Commission. We are also looking at helping to reform some of the policies that Canada has, and discussions will start there as early as the end of this month.
.1345
But a lot of it depends on the goodwill of Canada. They want to talk with us, but in the end it seems they are more afraid of us than anything else. I think we have to follow what the royal commission says. There has to be some reconciliation. We have to mend the wounds and the sorrow we have, because we don't trust each other. A lot can be done to improve the situation, but we have to work together.
A piece of legislation was drafted and put on the order paper the same day as this bill was. I was actually in the gallery when people were booing the minister. On December 12 I was sitting in the gallery, if you recall, when the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act was put forward at the same time as this piece of legislation. That piece of legislation is going to affect us. Again, if we don't clarify how that piece of legislation is going to work, it's going to divide people in the north. It's going to divide our regions, our tribal entities, and it's going to take apart the cohesion we have as first nation communities throughout the Mackenzie Valley.
We have a lot of concerns, and we do want to sit down and clarify them to the best wishes of everyone. So we continue to make that plea to you. We know in the big picture the north might be be just a small entity. People still see us as a northern frontier or as bush people, or whatever it is - I don't know how Canada sees us - but we have the right to decide our own future, and that's what we are engaged in.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I just want to say again, thank you for this opportunity. We would like to meet you face to face and we want to ask you not to rush. You have a duty and you have the honour there, with the Crown, to give them your best advice. I think we have an opportunity here to turn things around. That's why we came in today. Some of our people didn't want to come forward, but I think it makes sense that we try to communicate.
Thank you.
The Chairman: We want to thank you very much for coming in today and for sharing with us. You came across as very sincere chiefs, all three of you, and you spoke from the heart. Your contribution will be very helpful for the committee, not only in our deliberations on Bill C-79 but in our better understanding of you.
Did your colleagues wish to make closing remarks, Chief?
Chief Sangris: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
What you are talking about, self-government... In the last four years or so Treaty 8 had a protocol with the government, but it fell apart because of something co-existing. Treaty 8 gained some territory that it is exploring at this time with the first nations and Canada. We are having another discussion next week.
But about the Indian Act, I would like to invite you to our assembly to talk to our elders and our people. We are having an assembly in the week of June 23 to 28 in Yellowknife, about four miles out of town at a place called called Dettah, where I'm from. We'll send you an invitation. I hope you'll come and talk to us then, face to face. Probably some of our elders will give you some advice.
With that, thank you very much.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Chief Bonnetrouge, do you have closing remarks?
.1350
Chief Bonnetrouge: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'm from the Deh Cho territory. I'm glad that you asked about who's at the table negotiating. The Deh Cho region has been trying for the last four years to get to the negotiating table. As a matter of fact, we had an assembly just before Christmas, and it was clear that our region is prepared to get to the negotiating table to negotiate self-government. So I need to clarify and let you know that we are not at the table, but we would like to be, and if there is any message that you can give to the government to assist us in that regard, it will be much appreciated.
The Chairman: Thank you. All of your comments are on record. I'm convinced that the department is listening to every word and reading every word, so I don't think anyone can claim not to have heard them.
Thank you very much, from the Treaty NWT 8 Tribal Council, Chief Jonas Sangris; from the Dene Nation, Chief Bill Erasmus; and from the Deh Cho First Nations, Chief Joachim Bonnetrouge.
Chief Erasmus: Thank you.
Chief Sangris: Thank you.
Chief Bonnetrouge: Thank you.
The Chairman: Now we're calling Yellowknife. We would like to establish if Chief James Frith from the Gwich'in Tribal Council is there. If he is not, we will move on to Saskatoon.
.1352
.1511
The Acting Chairman (Mr. John Murphy (Annapolis Valley - Hants, Lib.)): Hello, Saskatoon. Good afternoon. My name is John Murphy. I'm acting chair. With me is Claude Bachand from the Bloc Québécois. We may have other members joining us.
I want to welcome Grand Chief Blaine Favel. I want to also welcome Chief Austin Bear and legal counsel Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond.
We look forward to your presentation. We have 40 minutes. You can use that 40 minutes as you wish, but I would hope that somewhere in the proceedings we can have an opportunity to ask some questions on your presentation.
Who wishes to speak first?
Grand Chief Blaine C. Favel (Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations): I will go first.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Murphy): Thank you, sir. Please go ahead.
Grand Chief Favel: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It's a pleasure to speak to you this afternoon from Saskatoon. The weather here is cold and there's a great deal of snow. Despite that, I would still prefer to make this presentation from this city, as opposed to Ottawa, so I appreciate your accommodating our scheduling and allowing this video conferencing to go forward.
I would like to also thank the parliamentary committee for taking this time to hear the position of the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations and the first nations of this region.
My name is Chief Blaine Favel. I'm the chief of the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations. This year the FSIN is celebrating its fiftieth anniversary as an organization representing the first nations people of Saskatchewan at the regional, national, and international level.
For your information, we're comprised of 74 first nations, nine tribal councils, with an elected regional grand chief and vice-chiefs. The first nations of the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations come from five treaty areas: Treaty No. 4, Treaty No. 5, Treaty Nos. 6, 8, and 10.
The mandate of the FSIN, just to introduce my comments, is to be a regional government for the first nations of this area and to advocate for the legal, historical, and cultural rights of first nations people of Saskatchewan. The FSIN includes 83 chiefs, one from each of the 74 first nations and nine tribal councils.
Each chief is elected by his people from the communities and each tribal chief is elected by the chiefs and councillors of the various tribal councils, through a process in which, hopefully, in most cases, all residents are allowed at some point to mandate their communities, and which in turn mandate the FSIN.
The FSIN, as we move forward into our fiftieth anniversary, is quite proud of many of our accomplishments. The royal commission report that was released last year indicated a number of recommendations for renewing Canada's relationship with first nations people. We are proud to say that in this province and with our chiefs and our people, which represent the Dene, the Sauteaux, the Dakota, and the Cree nations, we have achieved many of the recommendations of the royal commission. This year we celebrate the twentieth anniversary of the Saskatchewan Indian Federated College, Canada's only Indian university, and the Saskatchewan Indian Institute of Technology, one of Canada's few but perhaps most successful Indian technical institutes. And last December we announced another development the royal commission had recommended, a First Nations Bank of Canada. Our bank will formally be opening its doors here in Saskatoon in May. Our ownership is national. Our mandate and initiative are national.
.1335
We are quite proud of the work we have done and we have been quite proud of our business, our political and educational advocacy. What has always been a wellspring, a foundation of the federation, has been advocacy for treaties, for the inherent right of self-government, and advocacy for the recognition of the political rights of our people as they relate to the Government of Canada.
The FSIN has had an opportunity to review specifically the proposed Indian Act Optional Modification Act, which was tabled by Minister Irwin on December 12, 1996. We considered this legislation at a few of our assemblies. We considered it last year in June, when the first draft statements came out. Legal opinions were prepared at that time. The FSIN actually sponsored the resolution of the Assembly of First Nations in July, the one that stated the Assembly of First Nations position. We revisited it in August of last year. The resolution of August was of non-support.
In October the direction of our chiefs was to take a look at the bill and make specific recommendations, with the understanding that our best interests would probably be put forward if the bill did not go forward, but if the government chose to go forward we clearly had to voice specific concerns. We have done that. We took our mandates and the work back to our chiefs and assembly some two weeks ago, in February 1997. The chiefs passed a resolution, which I have attached to our written presentation and will formally courier to the committee after the presentation this afternoon.
The position of the chiefs of Saskatchewan on the proposed Indian Act Optional Modification Act is clear and certain. I would like to outline it before accepting any questions. I would like to review our position, because it has been the subject of some discussion before this committee and elsewhere and it is important that you hear directly from the 74 chiefs of this province, who speak for themselves on these matters.
The chiefs of Saskatchewan recognize that this bill, Bill C-79, is not an amendment to the Indian Act but co-exists with the Indian Act to provide options to first nations who wish to assume new authority or different powers from those of first nations operating exclusively under the Indian Act. The proposed Indian Act Optional Modification Act does not replace the Indian Act but provides options for each first nation to select, based on consultation with their membership.
We have studied the options in the bill and recognize from our analysis that there are two gates with these options. The first is a band council resolution asking that a name be added to the schedule, which brings the band into the Indian Act Optional Modification Act regime, which will modify certain elements of the Indian Act, for example three-year terms as opposed to two-year terms. Second, bands that have come into the parallel regime would then have a series of optional powers at their disposal, based on the discretion of the membership of that first nation. These, you are well aware, involve management of lands and new by-law making powers.
The chiefs of the FSIN, the 74 first nations, do not see the Indian Act or the proposed Indian Act Optional Modification Act as the process for implementing the inherent right of self-government or treaties. To achieve this end, which is the focus and lifeblood of this organization, quite recently we have entered into two specific agreements, which I would like to describe briefly to the committee.
First, in October of last year we renewed a historic office for Saskatchewan first nations called the Office of the Treaty Commissioner. This office was first established in 1989 by the then Government of Canada and by the predecessor of this organization. At that time the Office of the Treaty Commissioner had the mandate of looking at the traditional promises made under treaties, such as the treaty right to housing, the treaty right to treaty land entitlement, and trying to interpret them and put them forward in a modern context of how we can have treaty justice when it comes to our relationship with Canada. This office, which was renewed in October, has a mandate to look at treaty rights as they relate to hunting, fishing, and trapping, education, health care, justice, housing, child welfare, annuities, and other enumerated areas the Government of Canada and the chiefs of Saskatchewan will decide on from time to time.
In addition, with Premier Romanow we endorsed at the same time, in October 1996, a secondary agreement called the political protocol with the Government of Saskatchewan. This document illustrates and speaks to a recognition by the Government of Saskatchewan that the first nations of this territory possess the inherent right of self-government. It commits his government for the first time at a political level and at a bureaucratic level to negotiating and implementing the inherent right of self-government.
.1520
We were pleased to have this development take place, because although to that point the Government of Saskatchewan had been a great advocate for first nations people at the constitutional table, they had not yet delivered specific legislative proposals or specific changes that we could implement on the ground with the chiefs of Saskatchewan. So that was a breakthrough moment for us, and we were quite pleased with that.
These are the two agreements that are the priority of the chiefs of Saskatchewan. Our priorities are implementation of treaties and inherent right to self-government. We believe this would be our method of addressing the transition to self-government and the full recognition of treaty rights and the jurisdiction of first nations.
This is not to say, however, that the processes that we have in place today are perfect or that the federal and provincial policies supporting self-government and treaties are adequate to achieve meaningful recognition and implementation of our rights. But we started this process many years ago - within a few short years we'll be experiencing our tenth anniversary of the treaty commissioner's office - and we're pleased with this process, because it is a traditional office that our people have advocated from the time treaties were entered into.
When treaties were entered into on the prairies and they were negotiated by Lieutenant-Governor Morris, he promised our people that there would be a review of the terms of the treaties from time to time and that our people would have a chance to sit with the government officials to review how they could be further implemented.
We are now moving forward with the implementation of one agreement, the treaty land entitlement agreement, which is now into its fourth year and which settled the 27 outstanding treaty land entitlements in Saskatchewan. This was achieved through the Office of the Treaty Commissioner, and we have a great deal of confidence and hope, certainly, that this office will be utilized to further implement the inherent right to self-government and our treaty rights.
Our process is different from that put forward in the Indian Act or in Bill C-79. With regard to this particular bill, our chiefs have recognized that it is an optional bill, that there is a decision to be made by each community if the bill goes forward. However, at a political level we have seen that given our focus on inherent right to self-government and our treaty implementation we cannot presently support the bill. And if the Government of Canada goes forward with it, we would like to have each first nation make its choice with regard to the optional bill.
But we would like certain other things to be considered if this bill is to be proclaimed into law. Following the legal report by our legal counsel and some high-level political discussion by our chiefs in assembly when we considered this two weeks ago at our chiefs conference where all74 chiefs were in attendance, one of the recommendations that came directly from our chiefs was that although the fact that the act is optional decreases some of the tension, more comfort would be felt by our chiefs if, having chosen to opt into the act, there would be an opportunity at some later point to opt out if that community chose not to stay with the Indian Act Optional Modification Act. That was a recommendation directly from the floor of the chiefs conference and that was a recommendation that was mentioned and put forward from a political point of view by many of our chiefs.
Secondly, the chiefs would like the non-derogation clause, clause 4, of Bill C-79 strengthened to clarify that nothing in the Indian Act Optional Modification Act or the Indian Act will derogate from aboriginal or treaty rights of first nations, including the inherent right to self-government.
The FSIN has broader concerns about the Indian Act than can be addressed in the narrow context of Bill C-79, the Indian Act Optional Modification Act. For the record, we do believe that Bill C-79 is a narrow context of very limited changes with particular focus on estates, which is not an area we are preoccupied with but which appears for some reason to be the concern of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
During the consultations on the Indian Act amendments, we voiced our strong position that the Indian Act should be removed during the transition period while treaties and self-government are being implemented. However, certain critical issues arise during this transition period that are not addressed in the Indian Act Optional Modification Act. In particular we are concerned about section 88 of the Indian Act, which allows provincial laws to be incorporated into federal law and thus apply on reserve without our consent. This provision, section 88, which allows provincial laws of general application to apply on reserve, has interfered with self-government and treaty relations with Canada in a significant way and must be addressed as a priority.
.1525
Other issues trouble us yet about the Indian Act, including the ministerial disallowance power for by-laws and the limited control that first nations have over their band moneys, which are held in trust in Ottawa. It is our position that these critical issues be addressed in a transition process to self-government and treaty implementation.
These matters are not addressed in Bill C-79, and the FSIN would like the standing committee to at some point remain seized of these questions and enter into some processes looking forward to how we can essentially eliminate the Indian Act and recognize the inherent right of self-government. The legislation that presently exists will continue to be a stranglehold on the path to self-government and treaty implementation.
Finally, the FSIN strongly supports the conclusions of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples regarding the Indian Act, especially the recognition that the amendments to the Indian Act are not the vehicle for a new relationship or the process for self-government and treaty implementation.
I think it is clear that we have our processes here in Saskatchewan for the recognition of treaties and the implementation of the inherent right, and that remains our priority. We will not veer from that approach. First nations will make the decisions for themselves to pursue the Indian Act Optional Modification Act, but that is the choice of their communities.
Our approach has been the broader political issue of realizing the historic treaty promises. The chiefs of Saskatchewan envision our future as first nations in a different place from where we are today, given this debate over the Indian Act and the Indian Act Optional Modification Act.
We recognize that the preamble to the Indian Act Optional Modification Act confirms that this legislation is ``an interim measure until such time as self-government agreements are in place''. However, a better process and greater certainty are required to address our grievances with the current Indian Act and to support new and meaningful processes that lead away from such colonial relationships into more respectful coexistence in Canada, based on treaties and the inherent right of self-government.
These are our formal submissions. We will attach to our presentation the legal opinion prepared by David Knoll, of Davis and Company from Vancouver, who has been quite helpful in reviewing the first drafts of the Indian Act amendments when they came forward. He has provided an objective and arm's-length review of all of the amendments from that time.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to address you. If there are any specific questions you wish to ask or specific clarifications you want with respect to our position, I will be pleased to offer answers.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. John Murphy): Thank you very much, Chief. That was very a well done presentation and was very clear. We thank you for that.
Are there other members of your group who wish to speak at this time?
Chief Austin Bear (Muskoday First Nation): Yes, sir. One moment, please.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I'm Chief Austin Bear, from the Muskoday First Nation, Treaty 6, Saskatchewan region.
With respect to the modification act, Bill C-79, I don't wish to contradict the position of the Saskatchewan chiefs and the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations in any way. However, with the restrictive and limited provisions of the Indian Act as it exists, as a chief of a first nation I think that for those first nations who choose to do so by means of their membership, getting approval to opt in to the provisions of Bill C-79 provides, in an interim fashion, some measures of expanded powers and responsibilities. I don't find that particularly threatening, and personally I'm not nervous about the provisions.
Already some first nations across Canada are signatories to the framework agreement on land management - I think it was introduced in the House as Bill C-75 - and wish to move beyond the provisions of the Indian Act, at least with respect to the management, control, and benefit of their lands. They wish to achieve that end and are obviously moving toward it. They want to remove themselves from the provisions and the confines of the Indian Act. Muskoday First Nation is one of the fourteen first nations across Canada that are signatories to the framework agreement on land management, referred to earlier as Bill C-75.
.1530
Those are my comments, Mr. Chairman. I'm sure that if Bill C-79 is enacted as an option, Muskoday First Nation will be one - among others across Canada - that may very well seek any advantages with respect to the provisions in Bill C-79.
Thank you, sir.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. John Murphy): Thank you very much, Chief Bear.
We'll now go to questions, beginning with Claude Bachand.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand: Thank you, Chief Favel, for your presentation.
Am I correct in saying that you would rather see the several levels of government, both in Saskatchewan and federally, work on updating and implementing the treaties and the self-government agreements rather than spending time on a bill that modifies certain provisions of an act that is over 100 years old? If I correctly understood what Chief Austin Bear was saying, you might be content to see the bill passed with a certain number of changes.
You know that Bill C-79 is a whole. You cannot accept one part and reject the rest. It's a package deal, as it were.
Is it fair to say that, to your present thinking, the way to achieve prosperity and to improve your way of life is through self- government, self-government agreements, and updating and implementing the treaties rather than through the bill that is currently being proposed?
[English]
The Acting Chairman (Mr. John Murphy): Who would like to respond?
Grand Chief Favel: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the question, Mr. Bachand.
With respect to the position of the Saskatchewan chiefs, I think I made it quite clear that we have strong agreements in place with the Office of the Treaty Commissioner, and we have agreements with the Government of Saskatchewan on implementation of the inherent right of self-government. It has taken us a great deal of political effort and a great deal of lobbying to move to that stage. It is a new development unlike any other in Canada at this point, and we feel confident that the long-term solution will be captured in that process.
If Chief Austin Bear and his people would like to take that approach, that is the decision of his community, because they have to live under the present Indian Act, which is an outrageous act. If they choose that they can make those changes and can feel more comfortable with them on a day-to-day basis, it will be their choice, the choice of their people. It will not be Blaine Favel telling them to do it or not to do it. Our political direction, which I have received on a broader level, is to move toward the rights-based arguments and the rights-based approach; however, it is up to the communities to decide for themselves which road they would like to take.
Mr. Claude Bachand: I have no other questions.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. John Murphy): We thank you very much for your presentation. If you have any closing remarks you would like to make, you can make them now if you wish.
Grand Chief Favel: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
In closing, from what I am reading in the media I understand that you have a little bit of politics ahead of you in the next few months. If the standing committee has an opportunity to travel to Saskatchewan at some point, though, the FSIN would certainly like to host its members, because we believe we're on the cutting edge of many developments here in Saskatchewan. We've demonstrated that in the area of education, we've demonstrated it in the area of justice, in the establishment of the First Nations Bank, and in a whole host of other areas.
.1535
Our focus has been on having our traditional relationships under treaty recognized - the inherent right of self-government recognized - but also on creating some hope and some opportunity and some optimism for our people that the road ahead is much more positive than the road behind. We'd like to invite you to Saskatchewan at some point. We'd show you some good Saskatchewan hospitality and demonstrate to you that many of the successes the royal commission is pointing toward across Canada we've done here in Saskatchewan already. We're proud of that.
With respect to the very difficult work you have ahead of you with regard to this bill, we look forward to hearing the results of your deliberations. We would like you to consider the recommendations on further changes that we put forward. That is the direction directly, not from myself but from my chiefs, and we look forward at some point to welcoming you to our territory.
Thank you very much. We wish you a good afternoon.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. John Murphy): Thank you for your fine presentation. And thank you also for your offer. It would be a delight to come and see your success stories, and if we have an opportunity we'll certainly take that into account. We'd like to visit you.
I would say this brings us to a close this afternoon. Thank you very much.