EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, March 18, 1997

.1358

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib)): We'll resume our study of Bill C-79, an act to permit certain modifications in the application of the Indian Act to bands that desire them.

We are now in Edmonton, and we wish to welcome, from the Native Council of Canada Alberta, Doris Ronnenberg, president. Ms Ronnenberg, I see that you have colleagues with you. If any of them participate in the presentation, we will wish to hear their names first and what their role is on your council. Do you wish to let us know that now? Will you be the only one presenting, or will there be others?

Ms Doris Ronnenberg (President, Native Council of Canada Alberta): There will be two presentations besides mine. With me is Chief Keith Moon from the Blood First Nation, and Lilianne Shirk from the Cold Lake First Nation.

The Chairman: We didn't hear the first name you gave. Could you repeat the names again, please.

Chief Keith Moon (Member of the Board, Native Council of Canada): I'm Chief Moon from the Blood Indian Reserve in Stand Off, and I'm a board member of the Native Council of Canada.

The Chairman: Thank you. We heard it this time.

.1400

Friends, we have 40 minutes together. These 40 minutes belong to you. You may use them in any way you wish, although having said that, we would appreciate it if you would allow some time at the end for questions from members of the committee.

My name is Ray Bonin and I'm the chairman of the committee. We have with us Mr. Claude Bachand from the Bloc Québécois, and from the Liberals we have Mr. Elijah Harper, Mr. John Finlay, Mr. Charles Hubbard, and Mr. John Murphy.

Please proceed at your leisure.

Ms Ronnenberg: We have a written presentation, which we will be tabling with the committee. The oral presentation will be slightly different from the written one that will be tabled with you.

First of all, I'd like to introduce some of the other people who are sitting around the table. With me is Brian Littlechief from Siksika; Ernie Bruno, from Alexander; Valerie Arcand, our board member from Edmonton; Mel Buffalo xxx from Hobbema; George Prince and Esther Prince from Grand Prairie. Esther is also on our board of directors. I introduced Lilianne Shirk before. She's one of our members.

The first point I'd like to make is in terms of process. We feel the process is too scrunched up in terms of time.

I'm finding it very distracting trying to talk to you when you're talking to other people.

The Chairman: I asked that you make your presentation to the committee, and your judgment of my attention span will have to be put aside. I can hear what you're saying.

Ms Ronnenberg: You've reassured me, sir.

We're very concerned about the time we've been allotted in terms of looking at Bill C-79. Fifteen minutes to address this whole question in terms of the process is too short a time, and we're having real difficulty with that. Those of us who are sitting around this table are treaty Indians. We are being asked to comment on the rest of our lives within a 15-minute timeframe, and we're finding that very difficult.

I concur with the comments made by Ovide Mercredi and Harry Daniels in their presentations to this committee when they dealt with the process question.

The thing I would like to talk about is land and the areas that touch land in terms of Bill C-79. Land is a very sacred thing to Indian people, and I'm very concerned that the way land is going to be dealt with is going to affect the fiduciary responsibility of the Crown to our people through this new process that's being outlined in changes to the Indian Act. That is one of my main concerns.

The other is with regard to the electors of the band. The changes that are going to be made in terms of the electors of the band are going to have an impact on the off-reserve Indian people, including Bill C-31, in terms of the issues that will be dealt with by the band that they feel they have a right to vote on.

.1405

With those two points, and they will be further clarified in our written brief, I'm going to turn to Chief Moon to make his comments, then after that to Lillian Shirk to make her comments.

Chief Moon: Thank you very much, Madam President, and thanks to the committee for allowing us to participate in this process.

One of the things I want to reiterate is the fact that the process is too... For us, we are now just being made aware that there have been changes made to the Indian Act. I was very, very disappointed in the process. For example, the federal government just announced the royal commission's... A whole bunch of recommendations were made to deal with the damage that happened to the aboriginal people, and I find it very intriguing that this government does not follow the red book's commitments, not only to the aboriginal people but to human beings. Remember, we are indigenous to North America.

With that, I also want to mention that there's a fiduciary relationship that exists and has been ratified and affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada that the federal government, the minister, the Crown, has a fiduciary relationship to Indians, not to the chief and council, not to the Assembly of First Nations, but to Indians like myself who are struggling just to survive. And, boy, we are first nations of this land that we have in North America.

Again, even though there's been talk that we're represented by a chief and council, they do not represent our best interests or what is happening. For example, the Blood bands had a land claims settlement and they bribed the membership by offering them payments to come out and vote in favour of this land transaction, which is totally against what is called the democratic process.

I wanted to mention that that is very important to us, and as members who have been affirmed not only in the BNA Act but also in the charter that was enacted in 1982, we just remind this committee that you have to listen to us as Indians. It's been upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada, and again, those things are being put aside.

I want to remind the committee that the royal commission, the aboriginal peoples commission, recommendations were made to go through a healing process in order that we can catch up with the rest of Canada. Yet, we're put aside. I guess that's why we're concerned, and some of the people who have been here are concerned, that as aboriginal people we are made to struggle, even though there's a fiduciary relationship.

We're going through a process of what is referred to as genocide. In some ways, I think this government should look at ways and means to preserve. We may even fall into the endangered species category. I think all these things have to be considered, because no concrete effort is being put in place for us to preserve our culture, retain our language or our values, and so forth.

I'll cut off my comments there. Again, thank you for listening to me.

Ms Ronnenberg: Lillian would like to forego her comments right now. I'll read part of the paper that's going to be tabled with you. I'm going to start on page 4 in the second paragraph.

Perhaps NCCA can offer this committee a definition of consultation in this context. As appendix B to this brief we attach Hansard from an earlier House of Commons standing committee considering the same Indian Act 27 years ago, debating the Pierre Trudeau-Jean Chrétien white paper attached to this brief as appendix C.

.1410

In presenting the Indian response red paper, Harold Cardinal, then president of the Indian Association of Alberta, said at page 25:15:

xxx Throughout our paper and throughout all of our proposals there is the underlying requirement for consultation. We are firmly convinced, however, that the Department of Indian Affairs, with its archaic structure and misguided philosophy, is incapable of participating in a sincere and intelligent process of consultation. We feel it's imperative that the government create a new structure which we, through the National Indian Brotherhood, can negotiate.

Of course, that's the AFN now.

xxx We therefore recommend two immediate steps. The first is the dissolution of the present negotiation and consultation within the Department of Indian Affairs and that the government instruct them to cease immediately the process which is underway of implementing the white paper proposals.

xxx The second is that the Prime Minister and his cabinet enter into negotiations with the National Indian Brotherhood for the purpose of creating a new consultative body, mutually acceptable to both the government and the Indians, which would have power to begin planning the re-allocation of resources into Indian hands and the creation of a framework within which differences about treaties, aboriginal rights and land tenure can be resolved.

To the Native Council of Canada Alberta, this consultation definition of Mr. Cardinal's is to us as relevant today as it was 27 years ago, with three changes needed because of intervening events since 1970. One, NIB is now AFN. Two, the Constitution was patriated in 1982 and under section 35.2 refers to Indians, not Indian Act or reserve Indians, which necessitates the full involvement of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples and its provincial-territorial members with AFN in the consultation process. Indeed, a 1994 political accord with CAP, signed by Minister Irwin, calling for such consultation was tabled with this committee by CAP on March 6, 1997.

The 1985 amendments to the Indian Act, commonly known as Bill C-31, have resulted in over 10,000 Indians in Alberta, who are status Indians within the meaning of the Indian Act but have no band membership... This includes 20 bands whose names I will now read and whose representatives will be appearing before you this afternoon.

In Alberta, the list is accurate and based on, one, litigation against Bill C-31; two, public statements against Bill C-31; and three, written complaints made to NCCA by Alberta Bill C-31s against their bands.

Attached as appendix 4 to this brief is the list and one example, Saddle Lake First Nation's re-education. It follows that AFN cannot be consulted about Bill C-31 Indians because they have denied band membership by the very first nations in Alberta that make up AFN or are on their own outside AFN. This new fact, we submit, necessitates a full and immediate responsibility for the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples and its provincial-territorial members to be full stakeholders in any consultation process to amend the Indian Act or consider Bill C-75.

This, then, is our view on the process question of consultation.

We now come to the bill itself. We will address four aspects of the bill, time not allowing for the normal clause-by-clause analysis all previous standing committees of the House of Commons have allowed Indians since 1970.

The minister divides the bill into, one, restructuring of ministerial and first nations' powers; two, streamlining processes; three, repeal of sections; and four, validating current practises.

Attached as appendix 5 to this brief is the minister's synopsis. This is not the Indians' synopsis. Far from it.

NCCA has three major concerns. The first is increasing the power of chief and counsel with no accountability mechanisms for individual Indians, particularly off-reserve Indians and Bill C-31s.

.1415

NCCA comments that the whole thrust of Bill C-79 is to transfer more authority to bands. This assumes bands will be fair in the treatment of their members. Self-government does not only mean authority; it also means accountability by government to its citizens. At present, in actual practice - and this would be admitted by any responsible chief - the following is happening in Alberta. First, bands are using C-31 Indians for program-per-capita purposes like education, housing, and economic development, but are then completely denying C-31 Indians, and often off-reserve band members, access to such funding. Second, bands are using Bill C-31 Indians for specific claims purposes per capita - for example, the Cold Lake First Nation's Primrose Lake Air Weapons Range claim - but they deny access to Bill C-31 negotiations or benefits from such specific claims.

I would remind this committee that in considering Bill C-79 you have a duty to uphold the law, as well as to consider changes. Attached to this brief as appendix C is the 148-page, July 6, 1995, decision rendered by Mr. Justice Muldoon of the Federal Court of Canada. The decision dismissed the complaint of Senator Twinn, Sawridge First Nation, and others who tried to take out subsection 8.14(3) xxx of the same Indian Act, part of Bill C-31. The matter is under appeal this June, but Parliament's law must be upheld right now.

Where in Bill C-79 is there provision for Bill C-31 band-members-in-law to be electors under proposed section 74.2 of Bill C-79? Where is there provision for off-reserve Indians to be electors under proposed section 74.2 of Bill C-79?

Mr. Chairman, we have tabled a court decision here, not a lawyer's opinion. In this regard, as appendices 7 and 8(2), we also table court decisions - again not lawyers' opinions - dealing with off-reserve Indians having the legal right to vote for chief and council despite the ordinary resident clause in subsection 77(1) of the Indian Act. Both at trial and appeal, the Federal Court ruled in favour of the off-reserves, citing section 15 equality under the Constitution. This case, xxx Corbiere et al v. Batchewana and Indian et al is directly relevant to the sections of Bill C-79 dealing with electors. We suggest an amendment to Bill C-79 here, adding on-reserve and off-reserve band members after the word ``electors'' in section 74.2(1) of Bill C-79.

On the optional aspect of the bill, NCCA comments that on the face of it, it seems reasonable. There is one flaw, though. The bill allows a simple majority of chief and council to opt into the bill by BCR, and with no meeting, just signatures. A full band meeting should be required to opt in, with 50% of on- and off-reserve members consenting.

On the effect on reserve lands, NCCA comments that Bill C-79 allows powers regarding land to be transferred to the band council. What is this going to do to fiduciary responsibility of the Crown to Indians?

Thank you. I will now ask Lillian Shirk if she has further comments.

Ms Lilianne Shirk (Native Council of Canada Alberta): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I know the time given to us for the purpose of making the changes to the amendments to the Indian Act has been too short, especially since many of us are not lawyers. It would be foolish to make these changes now, because they are going to affect our children, our grandchildren, and the ones unborn.

When the treaties were signed over a hundred years ago, Mr. Erasmus did not speak Blackfoot, Cree, Stoney, or Sarcee. He spoke only English. Mr. Erasmus raised my grandfather, Peter Shirk, when he was just a little boy. That's how we know this history. Mr. Erasmus was the only translator for the treaty act. That's why all of our leaders signed with an X.

.1420

I would like to see that we are given some time to study the treaties before we agree to any changes.

The Chairman: Does this complete your presentation?

Ms Ronnenberg: No. Keith has one more comment, sir.

Chief Moon: I just want to make a final note. What's happening here is that the federal government is reneging on its responsibilities to Indians.

There's a lot of corruption happening under the existing, established structure, and it is affecting the livelihood of many Indians out here who are not necessarily living on the reservation. They are in fact living in the many urban centres. The majority of the Indians across Alberta, such as those from my reserve, the Blood Indian Reserve, live off-reserve - it's more than half - but there are millions of dollars being sent to the Blood Indians.

Again, there are many other first nations in the province of Alberta that are being sent moneys left and right, yet there is no accountability. For example, there was an unbiased study done by the University of Lethbridge, and it mentioned that there were 7,000 homeless people nobody wanted. These are members of the surrounding reservations, the Blood Indian Reserve and the Peigan Indian Reserve, yet millions of dollars are being spent. So there is no accountability in that respect, and this thing goes on and on.

Contrary to the findings of the royal commission, the findings that were supposed to be put in place, again there is no accountability. The federal government is reneging on its responsibilities to its first nations. I am of the opinion that the federal government is trying to abandon its responsibilities to the indigenous people of North America.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Before I go on to questions from members, I want to again ask if this completes your presentation.

Ms Ronnenberg: Yes, it does, and thank you for hearing us.

The Chairman: For the record, I will mention that this bill was tabled on December 12, 1996, and the notices went out on February 26, 1997. Hopefully they didn't get lost in the mail, but I personally faxed a message to all of your members of Parliament on February 26 or 27. We did everything we could to make sure you were aware that this legislation was coming. It has been in the workings for almost a year.

Do any members have questions or comments?

Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to follow up on some of the concerns that were voiced.

It's been reported before to our committee that each reserve has a transparent system of accounting and that the accounts of expenditures of various bands are available to the members on request. Some of your evidence indicated that this was not so. I would suggest that if there is a problem, you should indicate that to our committee. Also, I believe the minister's office would be very much concerned if the records, the audits that are forwarded to the department, are not available to band members. Could you perhaps comment on that?

Ms Ronnenberg: What you're telling me is a total fallacy. People have to go to the Access to Information Act to try to access financial information from their bands. Band statements of accounts are not just given over to you because you're a band member.

.1425

Mr. Charles Hubbard: The department has indicated to the members of the public accounts committee that all audits of band spending are available to any band member upon request. If such is not the case, I would suggest that you report it to the Auditor General of Canada, and his office will indicate that that is the report that is there.

Ms Ronnenberg: Do you have any comments on that, Lillian or Keith?

Chief Moon: In terms of what is happening as far as accountability is concerned, we just recently went through a process in which a land claim settlement was suppose to have been... Again, it certainly contravenes all the processes of fairness, of equality in a democratic process. Members of the Blood Indian Reserve No. 148 were bribed to vote in favour of this transaction. The elders did not agree with this process, but I will submit to this committee some of the information on that particular issue. In fact, we notified the regional office at Edmonton that this was protested, but they went ahead with it anyway. As for me, I have tried to get copies of our annual financial audit report, but they are not being made available.

The Chairman: Are there any other questions? There being none, I thank you very much for your presentation. Everything you have said has been put on record. When we go into deliberating Bill C-79, only the materials that pertain to the bill will be accepted in the debate amongst committee members.

You made references to procedures that the department or the minister should use. I encourage you to draw this to their attention, because the members here will address their attention solely to comments or testimony relating to Bill C-79. That's our mandate, and that's the job we're doing.

So thank you very much for your presentation. We bid you farewell.

Ms Ronnenberg: Thank you.

The Chairman: Before you leave, may I ask that you fax us the material you wanted to table? Could you get it in to us today? Tomorrow is the last day for receiving written presentations, so we would like to have it before we start our clause-by-clause this Thursday.

Ms Ronnenberg: Do we fax it to the people who are going to be chairing, or do we fax it directly to your committee?

The Chairman: You would fax it directly to the clerk of the committee, whom you have been dealing with.

Ms Ronnenberg: That's Christine Fisher.

The Chairman: That's correct.

Ms Ronnenberg: We'll do that, sir.

The Chairman: Thank you.

This concludes this part of the public hearings.

.1429

.1441

The Chairman: We will proceed, then, with Ms Helen Gladue, from the Advisory Council of Treaty Women of Alberta, who is with us to assist us in reviewing Bill C-79, an act to permit certain modifications in the application of the Indian Act to bands that desire them.

Ms Gladue, I see that you have colleagues with you. Will some of them be making a presentation? If so, it's quite acceptable, but we will need to know the names of the individuals if they make a presentation or participate, along with their function in your group.

Ms Helen Gladue (Representative, Advisory Council of Treaty Women of Alberta): With me is the chairperson of the Advisory Council of Treaty Women of Alberta, Veronica Warren; xxx Geraldine Willard from Treaty No. 8; Colleen from Treaty No. 6; xxx Samantha Alexis from Treaty No. 6; and xxx Sandra Rostay and xxx Elaine Bancroft from the Louis Bull Band. We have others present here from the advisory council, along with yours truly, Helen Gladue.

Good afternoon, honourable members.

I will have Mrs. Warren read the document.

The Chairman: Before you start, we would appreciate it if your facilitator could fax us the names of all of the people who are participating in this presentation.

Ms Gladue and colleagues, we have 40 minutes together. My name is Ray Bonin and I'm chairman of the committee. We have Mr. Finlay and Mr. Murphy with us from the government side. We would appreciate it if you would allow some time for questions.

Please proceed.

Ms Veronica Warren (Chairperson, Advisory Council of Treaty Women of Alberta): Why we are here: the Advisory Council of Treaty Women, Alberta, feels an awesome moral responsibility to respond to the plan of the Minister of Indian Affairs to fast-track Bill C-79, modifications in the application of the Indian Act, through the Parliament of Canada. That scheme of action, unilaterally taken by the minister, is regarded as a very serious threat to the long-standing bilateral treaty relationship that exists between Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, in right of Canada and the treaty first nations.

To understand the political impact of that action, it is essential to recall important first nations Canadian history.

We have a valid right of self-determination. There has been a long pattern of half-hearted, inadequate, failed consultation practices by the federal Crown in parleying with the first nations leaders.

.1445

These failures have led to a pattern of unilateral decision-making by the minister and his colleagues in Parliament that have tainted the fiduciary trust role of the minister and drastically undercut the faith of first nations people in dealing with the federal government.

The Minister, Ron Irwin, has proclaimed publicly that he intends to herd Bill C-79 through Parliament regardless of the opposition coming from 85% of the first nations chiefs. This is a flagrant act of naked paternalism that eats at the very roots of the parliamentary democratic process.

The unenthusiastic response of Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and the Hon. Ron Irwin to the tabling of the voluminous reports of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples has further served to destroy feelings of trust. The Prime Minister has said that his government will not consider it until after the impending federal election. The Minister of Indian Affairs has said that proposed future spending is very unrealistic and that implementation of over 400 recommendations could take 20 or more years. At present, we wonder whether the vast expenditure of $60 million by the commission will ever improve the quality of our lives.

The tactics devised for assimilating our first nations have always been aimed at discrediting and undermining our status as first nations people on this Turtle Island.

As we speak, the federal Department of Human Resources reflects the government's assimilation ideology. All native people, regardless of having treaties or no treaties, are lumped together for administrative purposes.

Many in the international community do not agree with Canada's subversive policy. Article 3 of the United Nations draft declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples states:

xxx Indigenous peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

As first nations we have always had our own governments. By the doctrine of the Royal Proclamation of 1763, King George III recognized our tribes as first nations. We were regarded as sovereign and distinct. Now, over two centuries later, the immigrant government of this land is bent on reversing that proclamation. The big push is to assimilate us, to cause us to lose our identify and status and thereby pirate away our last stocks of natural resources, leading to enforced poverty.

We have the inherent right to first nations government. The treaties negotiated between us and the British Crown in right of Canada confirms our nation status. That is why we have always resisted all political pressures and manipulations to transform our unique governments into reserve municipalities under provincial jurisdiction.

You must recall that it was in the British High Court on January 24, 1982, that Justice Lord Dunning ruled that our treaties were valid and that even after the repatriation of the Constitution, the federal Crown of Canada would be obliged to uphold and honour our treaties.

.1450

Let us cite an example by the terms of Treaty No. 6, 1876. The commissioner promised us animals and implements for economic development through agriculture. Because of nearly total failure to keep such a commitment, many of our people wallow in poverty.

Today most of our reserves are not like an industrialized society. There are very few factory assembly lines, but many assembly lines that produce poverty.

Our first nations governments are part of and reign our communal societies. We have survived for tens of thousands of years on that basis. We like that proven arrangement, and we intend to keep it.

We refused to support ad hoc accords such as those of Meech Lake and Charlottetown because they were threats to our nationhood, unique status, and culture, when Elijah Harper, Manitoba MLA, scuttled the struggle and won for all first nations.

A long process of legislation mired us in frustration and mistrust. The earliest legislation pertaining to sovereign first nations was effected in 1850. More followed, right up through the year 1924. In 1948, 1949, 1951, and 1968, the legislative pen was hard at work.

In 1951, when section 88 was put into the Indian Act, there was a major assault on our first nations' sovereignty. Section 88 allowed provincial governments, under set circumstances, to usurp our first nations legislative jurisdiction, another long step towards unwanted assimilation.

An especially disastrous period for us was from 1968 to 1969. Under the guise of amending the Indian Act, then ministers of Indian Affairs Jean Chrétien and Robert Andras totally deceived us. Instead, the 1969 white paper on Indian policy was created to throw first nations into oblivion: no treaties, no status, and the risk of losing our land base and culture.

Somewhat later, when John Munro was Minister of Indian Affairs, provincial child welfare legislation was under review. We, the women, struggled against the assimilative adoption policies of that time. Quite amazingly, John Munro supported our stand, saying first nations child care should fall under section 91, item 24 of the Constitution, thereby respecting a key prerogative of first nations government jurisdiction.

Our first nations fought back against the 1969 termination of status and rights policy, and we succeeded with the help of a major sector of the non-Indian population. When then Prime Minister Pierre E. Trudeau was compelled to accept our Citizens Plus document in June 1970, he wavered, saying, in essence, we won't proceed with the implementation of the white paper policies now, but over a period of years it is possible. Now we wonder whether Jean Chrétien's current stonewalling of our people is political revenge for him and for Pierre Trudeau.

.1455

During the years 1979 to 1982, the repatriation of the Constitution period, our first nations struggled with great intensity to ensure that our treaty and inherent rights would be enshrined in the law of the land.

In 1981 and 1982, when our chiefs and advisers were in London to muster the support of British parliamentarians for our cause, it was the then Minister of Justice Jean Chrétien and the Canadian High Commissioner in London, Jean Watt, xxx who tried to subvert our every effort. They failed. Justice Lord Denning was on our side and ruled in our favour.

In 1993, disillusioned by the failure of Canada to clarify and strengthen treaty obligations to first nations, the Confederacy of Treaty Six First Nations returned to London to lobby once again the British Parliament and to convene a private meeting with retired Lord Denning.

Today we wonder whether the repatriated Constitution is even validated, considering that the Province of Quebec has never concurred in that.

Despite our wishes and intentions, subsection 37(2) of the repatriated Constitution served a twisted purpose for the government. It opened the door for provincial jurisdictional penetration into the realm of first nations-Canada-Crown relationships. The strategy to assimilate us politically through subsection 37(2) discussions has failed.

Similarly, section 15, which deals with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, was aimed at decimating our communalism, our collectives called ``reserves''. From a cultural perspective, our prime interest is collective rights. Individual rights, while still important, are at a secondary level. We have seen this as another avenue of assimilation.

In 1985, then Minister of Indian Affairs David Crombie passed Bill C-31 regarding changes to the criteria for first nations membership. We rejected that legislation, while at the same time demanding that, if it were passed, the federal government would have to provide additional reserve land, more housing, payment of treaty annuities, and provide full treaty benefits such as education, health care, social services, and economic development.

For about four and a half years, our women from treaty areas 6, 7, and 8 rallied politically, travelling to Parliament Hill to lobby against the bill, and 295 MPs and 104 senators heard our pleas, the most steadfast movement that followed the repatriation controversy.

We were betrayed another time, and the consequence has been that tight dollars have to serve thousands of newly reinstated people. Ever since, ministers of Indian Affairs have been trying to draw the sympathy of non-Indian voters, saying that Indian expenditures have soared out of control.

In 1989, when Brian Mulroney was steering the government, 23 sections of the Indian Act were amended. Faced with the steady negative political onslaught of both Liberal and Conservative governments, our first nations ventured to the Russell tribunal and slightly later to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in Geneva, to solicit international support against the repressive and assimilative policies of Canada.

.1500

After 12 years of lobbying and hard work, first nations have succeeded in completing a draft declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples. All through that development process, officials of the Canadian government, and especially the U.S.A., tried to politically hamper that movement from reaching its ultimate achievement.

Bill C-79 violates the promises of the Liberal Party red book. When the Chrétien Liberals campaigned for the last federal election, they opened their red book in which they promised to religiously consult with the first nations on all vital issues and policies. It was a shallow promise. They showed their real intent to assimilate first nations by involving a few of our peoples in their native caucus, the lumping together of the Inuit, Métis, non-status, and status peoples.

In 1993, still another assimilation thrust came forth from the federal cabinet, a land charter act and other legislation dealing with reserve environment, forestry, taxation, and governance. Although this legislation, which was strongly resisted by us, never passed, the Minister of Indian Affairs slipped through the political back door and implemented new policies aimed at achieving the same ends as the defunct legislation.

We bring to your attention the fact that the proposed Treaty Land Entitlement Agreement, which would have been patterned to fit the Saskatchewan government formula for turning over legitimately claimed lands to the first nations, had a rider that there would be a property tax levied on these newly acquired lands.

Now Minister Ron Irwin wants to amend 68 sections of the Indian Act under Bill C-79. This is not, as claimed, just a legislative housekeeping task. The revisions are aimed at pushing us further towards provincial jurisdiction and include changes that we summarily rejected in 1982. Bill C-79 may be optional all right, a choice for our people to rush towards assimilation or retain our uniqueness.

A good measure of our opposition to this dictatorial legislation is the participation of about 2,000 of our citizens in a protest at Canada Place in Edmonton this past February 25. There, several of our wise elders spoke out against this latest legislative tyranny.

The spectre of illegal first nations taxation lurks overhead. By the terms of our time-honoured treaties, first nations people are exempt from the payment of sundry taxes. The great assimilation push is now aimed at coercing us to pay taxes in violation of our treaties. We know of a Treaty No. 8 man who earned income while maintaining a legitimate business office on his reserve. He was billed for $5,000 in unpaid income tax. We know of a second case involving $12,000 and a third involving $24,000. Citizens of the Hobbema nations have reported having their pension cheques held back for two months because they failed to file income tax returns.

First nations workers may be forced to pay UI taxes, contrary to treaty terms. The Supreme Court of Canada, in the Williams case, ruled in favour of the first nations person, declaring that the accused did not have to pay taxes. It is anticipated that the Government of Canada will attempt to circumvent that decision so the taxation issue remains a no man's land for us.

.1505

Our reasons for protesting the introduction of Bill C-79 follow.

To move the legislation forward over the overwhelming protests of our first nations makes heresy of democracy.

Talk about irony. Our Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lloyd Axworthy, travels to Havana to convert the Cubans to following our brand of democracy and to improve human rights conditions. He should take a glance at the tactics used to intimidate and control our first nations.

The main purpose of Canadian federal Indian legislation since the beginning of Confederation has been to marginalize first nations in the dominant society so as to garner more and more of our natural resources. That direction is the exact opposite of what is stated in the draft declaration on rights of indigenous peoples and the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples.

The process of colonization and the use of divide and conquer tactics by the federal Minister of Indian Affairs and his bureaucrat cohorts are still used to bring first nations peoples to their knees. He has been effective in splitting up the chiefs of the Assembly of First Nations by setting up chiefs' consultation committees and wooing them to support his legislative and policy initiatives.

This is demeaning to our people and can no longer be tolerated. It is degrading for the Canadian nation as a whole. There is no sense or logic at all in having Parliament pass ad hoc changes in the form of ``Indian Act number two'' when the Cabinet and Parliament have not yet had ample time to consider the breadth and quality of over 400 recommendations of the royal commission report.

We have always been against the continual piecemeal amending of the Indian Act. Our chiefs are bewildered by the maze of changes. Even as we are making this presentation, the commission leaders are consulting with reserve leaders to explain the recommendations. There is a dreadful amount of misunderstanding among our citizens because of such a bizarre approach.

At present, the Minister of Indian Affairs has the prerogative to control 18 sections of the present Indian Act by way of section 4 of the act. Considering that specific strong provisions concerning treaty and aboriginal rights are not yet enshrined in the Constitution, it is fitting that the minister should assert his fiduciary trust obligation through the Indian Act.

Bill C-79, as we have analysed and viewed it, is just one more tactic in the implementation of the unwanted policies of the 1969 white paper. The push to negotiate a tripartite Canada- provincial-first nations memorandum of understanding and the like are a reflection of the tenure of subsection 37(2) of the Constitution, initiatives for devolution of federal responsibilities to the provinces and weakening of the first nations sovereignty and treaties.

.1510

In regard to the development, administration, and enforcement of reserve by-laws, there is a jurisdictional vacuum in that first nations do not have formalized authority for a functioning judicial system. The consequence is that there is a clear intent to devolve reserve jurisdictional authority to outside municipal and provincial courts. This deficiency largely explains why the penal institutions of Canada are loaded all out of proportion to the total population with first nations men and women.

In the manner in which Bill C-79 tinkers with the present reserve land tenure system, the door is open in the future to impose the dominant society property taxation system on first nations governments. Therein is a great risk in alienating prime reserve lands due to tax defaulting. It bears mentioning here that there are two main land tenant designations for residential and agricultural lands within the reserve context.

Under section 20 of the Indian Act, one can hold a certificate of occupation. After two years of occupation, the holder can secure a certificate of possession, a CP, which amounts to permanent land tenure status.

For other purposes, there is a right of way arrangement that is possible under the authority of the Indian Act. In this connection, we want to point out that reserve lands are communal, as they were before European contact. Houses built on this land are the properties of the first nations government.

The Advisory Council of Treaty Women has a long record of trying to get first nations child care and protection within the purview of those governments, rather than within the provincial government department and, at present, ad hoc private child care organizations. Up until now, our first nations children from broken homes have been little more than political pawns ready to be seized by childless outside married folk.

Our principal recommendations to the parliamentary committee are as follows.

First, freeze any and all plans to amend or extend the present Indian Act, Indian Act number two. There is no mandate from first nations for such an action.

Second, focus attention totally on the over 400 recommendations of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples report so as to understand the direction first nations want to go in formalizing and enhancing their tradional governments. Do this without any further politicking and delay.

Third, review the progress reports on the history and status of indigenous peoples treaties conducted by Professor Martinez xxx of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights over the past eight years. Use those findings as a means to support the validity and effectiveness of first nations bilateral treaty relations and government jurisdiction. Consider the principles of the United Nations draft Declaration of Rights of Indigenous Peoples in determining the nature of first nations government and their long-range political, social, economical, and cultural development.

Ms Gladue: Thank you, Veronica.

.1515

Further to that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to make slight comments with regard to the recent Supreme Court dismissal of xxx Darlene Desserly, who was a non-Indian and became a chief of the Sturgeon Lake Band. As recently as yesterday morning, the Supreme Court dismissed the case, stating that the modification of the Indian Act is in progress. I question the Government of Canada at this time as to whether it is right for the Supreme Court of Canada to have power over the present actions by your government regarding Bill C-79.

I received this information just before we came into this room, and it's really bothering me. If the Supreme Court is going to say that we are going ahead with the revisions of Bill C-79, then what they're saying to us is that they have all the powers to predetermine this set of amendments to the Indian Act.

Mr. Chairman, at the present time I see that it is cruel and against my human rights for the Government of Canada to say that they are going to unilaterally make a decision. You see these ladies sitting around here. We are just a few, but we become a big number when actions like that are going to be taken.

That is going to offset the treaty rights. That is going to offset determining if I have a piece of land. Where I come from, it's called the Beaver Lake First Nations.

I get really uptight. I have studied your processes, Mr. Chairman, for over 30 years, and none of them have given me a little light. In a discussion with Minister Ron Irwin on November 19 at the chiefs summit here in Alberta, he stated that he was in the worst dilemma he had ever put himself in by making his own recommendation towards the amendments of the Indian Act. He said at that time that this might die on the Order Paper. We want to register from the Advisory Council of Treaty Women that this must not take place.

This is the only administrative document that we have. Mr. Chairman, I have with me the 1980 Indian Act. This was written before the treaties of 1876 in the area of Treaty No. 6; in the area of Treaty No. 7, 1877; and in the area of Treaty No. 8, 1899. This Indian Act that your government came up with was dated 1850.

Mr. Chairman, it becomes unreal when I say this is against my human rights, against any human rights in Canada for anybody, for a government to try to violate the rights we have as Canadian people. We are not Canadians. We are the first people in this country. That's what we keep hammering away at. That is what I wanted to bring to your attention.

With regard to the taxation issue, I have a letter here from Revenue Canada to a man from the Louis Bull reservation here in Alberta, Treaty No. 6, stating that he owes the government $4,783.56, while we are saying that taxation is a treaty right. The sun has not stopped shining, the rivers have not stopped flowing, and the grass will continue to grow.

Mr. Chairman, these are realistic things. I have never seen you before. I hope in this process that we have 40 minutes, like you said to us, so you can be educated from the treaty Indian women's point of view.

Further to that, I brought this to your attention. This man happens to be a resident and made his money on the reserve, and yet he's being taxed. This is not the only one. We have others on record.

.1520

With regard to the child care issue, if the minister was going to make any constructive recommendations to amend the Indian Act, our children should have been thought about. They should have been number one. There should have been legislation, because, as we said in our brief, John Munro said it was a constitutional issue.

I was in Ottawa. We pleaded with the government to recognize our children that are apprehended. Do you know what the government said to us? Go home, because the Canadian Constitution has not become a valid constitution. We mentioned that, again, in our brief, that if the government goes ahead and amends this Indian Act, we are being used.

It's not real for me to talk to you in a picture. I have never been in this kind of process. I have always been able to be in the same room with you honourable members, to hear our opinions, to hear our concerns, and to know where we're coming from.

We are from the grassroots level. We know what conditions our people are in. We know at this very moment there is starvation on my own reservation because at the present time we have what is called an Indian Act.

Band custom elects a chief, but at the present time we have what we call a court-ordered chief, because even if you say modification, this is optional, the prime example we're giving you. We took the option already; we took band custom in our reserve, and because there was disagreement, it landed in the hands of the federal courts. It's still there.

Honourable Chairperson, I am saying this is gross; this is unreal. If the government cannot recognize what we have set aside for our future generations...

In my days, I remember we had a system in place called hereditary leadership. I come from that line, and I can speak about it, where my chief was my own grandfather, the first chief of the Samson reservation in Hobbema. I came from that reserve. Again, with the stroke of a pen, by marriage 40 years ago to a man from Beaver Lake, I automatically became a band member of the Beaver Lake First Nation.

Mr. Chairman, having said just a few of these...I now allow you to question us, if you will.

The Chairman: Unfortunately, you used up all 40 minutes of the time allocated. There will not be time for questions.

Your presentation was very interesting. Not very much of it related to Bill C-79, which is what we are here to hear about, but it's certainly important that you get those things on record. You were given an opportunity to do it, and you did it.

We want to thank you for your excellent presentation. This concludes this part of the hearings.

Ms Gladue: Mr. Chairperson, I would like to say this. Again, it is against our human rights to be deprived and not to be understood.

On the last page of the recommendations, the comments concerning the sections of Bill C-31 are well written, and you will probably get them by fax. It's there. The articles we used with the International Declaration of Human Rights are also attached.

So when you look at the paper you will also see that we have done a lot of work in the area of Bill C-79.

Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Is Chief Stanley Arcand present? If not, we would like to know if Chief Gerry Ermineskin or Gordon Lee are present.

.1525

.1528

The Chairman: Committee members, there's a gentleman who will speak for Chief Stanley Arcand, who was supposed to appear at 2:40 p.m. Do you want to give him half an hour? Is that reasonable? Thank you very much.

We will allow 30 minutes. We expected Chief Stanley Arcand to be there at 2:40 p.m. our time, but we do have half an hour, so we will allow the half hour.

Could you state your name please, and your position on the council?

Mr. Ron Lameman (Acting Executive Director, Confederacy of Treaty 6 First Nations): Good afternoon. My name is Ron Lameman. I'm from Beaver Lake First Nation. I'm here speaking on behalf of the Confederacy of Treaty 6 First Nations, which represent 17 first nations in the central part of Alberta - Treaty 6 territory.

.1530

I wanted to let you know that Chief Ermineskin is not going to make it either, so this is going to be a joint statement.

The Chairman: Excuse me, how about Gordon Lee, who was suppose to present with Chief Gerry Ermineskin?

Mr. Lameman: Yes, they sent me.

The Chairman: Neither of them will be appearing - is that correct? Can you hear me? We'd like to know if both Chief Gerry Ermineskin and Gordon Lee are not presenting, and you are replacing them.

Mr. Lameman: Yes.

They wanted to know if it's possible, if these hearings carry on for any length of time, to be able to speak again in the future. They wanted me to ask you.

The Chairman: Okay, we can respond to that. The video conferencing ends today - this evening around 9:30. But this does allow us time, so we will allow you 40 minutes.

We would like to know what your position is on the Confederacy of Treaty 6 First Nations.

Mr. Lameman: I'm the interim executive director in the confederacy.

The Chairman: Have you been mandated by them to speak on their behalf?

Mr. Lameman: Yes.

The Chairman: All right. We therefore have 40 minutes together. We appreciate that you are there to share with us your views on Bill C-79, an act to permit certain modifications in the application of the Indian Act to bands that desire them.

I am Ray Bonin, chairman of the committee, and I have with me, from the Bloc Québécois,Mr. Claude Bachand, and from the Liberal Party, Mr. John Finlay. We have 40 minutes together. We would appreciate it if you will leave time for questions after, but you may use the 40 minutes in any way you wish. They belong to you. Having said that, please proceed.

Mr. Lameman: Thank you.

First of all, I'll say good afternoon, gentlemen - I take it there are no ladies - of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs.

My name is Ron Lameman. I'm the acting executive director of the Confederacy of Treaty 6 First Nations. I have been delegated by the chiefs to appear before you, so that the point of view of the Confederacy of Treaty 6 First Nations will be heard by the decision-makers in Ottawa.

However, we do want to go on record that we are appearing before you under duress, and we do not agree with the way in which this whole affair is being handled by the Government of Canada. This cannot and should not be wrongfully construed as full and proper consultation. The confederacy is still steadfast in its stand that the railroading that is being done - being conducted by engineer Ron Irwin - is totally unacceptable to the first nations of Treaty No. 6.

We are here to reiterate what we have been saying all along: nation-to-nation bilateral treaty processes, not more Indian Act amendments. The answer lies in treaty clarification and implementation, as opposed to the perpetuation of unilateral colonial doctrine.

The continuity from the pre-contact first nations forms of treaty-making with our Treaty No. 6 protocols was detailed in a presentation to RCAP in Ottawa, November 1994, made by the late xxx Sam Bull, Chief xxx John Ermineskin, xxx Wayne Rowan, and myself, along with xxx Buff Perry.

At that time, evidence of pre-contact treaty-making between the first nations was given in abundance. In reference to this evidence, Chief Big Bear stated in 1876, and I quote, ``I want to tell you how our people used to make treaties.'' Chief Big Bear was never recorded as stating ``Now I'm going to tell you about the way we used to amend the Indian Act.'' He didn't say that.

It is this continuity from pre-contact first nations treaties to the bilateral treaties with the crown that should be shaping the crown and first nations relations, not the amendments to the Indian Act.

.1535

Conversely, the unilateral Indian Act cannot shape or interpret the bilateral treaties, yet this seems to be what we are witnessing at this time. Granted, Bill C-79 opens with a treaty rights clause, and in the text the treaty relationship is the purpose of the bill's second ``whereas''.

The all-encompassing, amoeba-like character of the Indian Act is surrounding the treaties to the point of threatening to suffocate them, rather than intending to serve as the administrative document to guide the federal government to carry out these trust obligations, which Chief Jonathan Bull xxx stated in his condemnation of Bill C-79. It comes from written and unwritten covenants in the treaties. The Indian Act does not do what its sole purpose should have it doing, which was aptly put by Chief Bull xxx with respect to the treaties.

More specifically, Bill C-79 makes artifacts out of our treaties, while at the same time promising to respect the special historic relationship between Her Majesty and the Indians, including the treaty relationship.

While such a promise is made under Bill C-79 at the second ``whereas'', only a few sentences later on we are assured again that ``nothing in the Indian Act, applied in accordance with this Act, shall be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from the protection provided for existing aboriginal or treaty rights of Indians.'' Then the rest of Bill C-79 goes on to do just that, abrogate and derogate the treaty.

At the same time, another institution of the crown, the Supreme Court of Canada, in several successive decrees makes it clear that one people can be protected by layers and numbers of different treaties, but treaties are treaties and acts are acts. As stated by myself to the RCAP hearings, when the commissioners made the solemn promises in the presence of the sacred pipe stem, they did so with the Creator as a witness to the sacred treaty agreement. That is why our forefathers were confident in agreeing to the treaty.

The transient and relative Indian Act makes for a unilateral tool and not an ongoing bilateral legal institution.

The Assembly of First Nations brief to the standing committee regarding Bill C-79 refers to this in the following statement, and I quote: ``Bill C-79 is completely contrary to the policy commitments the Liberal Party made prior to their election to office.'' It was to take a route other than the Indian Act.

The red book stated, and again I quote: ``It does not make sense for the federal government to be unilaterally making policy or budgetary decisions that affect the lives of Aboriginal people, without their involvement.'' Yet in Bill C-79, for example in clauses 18 and 21, lands management obligations of the crown are reduced. It has been the policy position of most, if not all, federal government departments that the degree of responsibility assumed by first nations reduces the fiduciary responsibility of the crown by a corresponding amount.

Isn't it ironic how history seems to have a way of repeating itself? In 1969 Chrétien and Irwin were the key figures in the drafting and tabling of the white paper, and now, 28 years later, they are determined to finish what they started nearly three decades earlier; that is, to deal with the Indian problem once and for all by relegating treaty first nations peoples to the status of ordinary Canadian citizens to be governed by municipal-style corporate entities with the ability to sue or be sued under the Canadian corporate system.

The real shame of this sham is that they are disguising it as a progressive overture of their benevolence in allowing the Indians the right to make more decisions for themselves, when in fact those who believe in the song and dance are being coerced into being accomplices in their own demise. With corporate structures come taxes. With certificates of possession, next will come fee simple title and ultimately individual ownership, property taxes and alienation.

.1540

Our bilateral alternatives to the unilateral nature of Bill C-79 would include the RCAP final report and some of the recommendations to be considered with regard to the treaty and treaty first nations, including the Confederacy of Treaty No. 6 First Nations RCAP presentation of the continuity of treaty-making protocols.

This is pointed out in order to establish an alternative pathway on which the recognition of our first nations law-making customs will be treated with a bilateral accord and the due respect that we deserve.

The continuity of the pre-contact and post-contact treaty protocols gives us some assurance that the customary law, of which treaty law is a subset, survives without formal codification or statute. The Indian Act, on the other hand, is whimsical. It is entirely codified, yet it changes with the wind. Treaty-making protocols may be uncodified to the Eurocentric mindset, yet they remain the stronger of the two and they will stand the test of time.

Can the treaties address what the changes in the Indian Act, specifically Bill C-79, attempt to address? We'll answer it in this way. Any changes in the Indian Act that allow for the ultimate mortgaging of reserve land, or, as the lawyers put it, any changes that ``increase pressures for privatization and commercialization of Indian land'', will erode the - and I quote - ``forever'' intent of the treaties in which reserve lands were not negotiable or seen as land commodities, but as lands at best owned collectively and at least in the trust of the crown, so that they would never be put on the table for negotiation.

To now vest the rights, to negotiate the status of treaty lands into first nations hands, supports the claim of outright title to reserve lands and thus further erodes and will eventually negate the all-important and invaluable nature of the trust relationship. In other words, at the threshold of assimilation, our trust relationship to our reserve lands is being given final notice. Can you believe this? The tenant is giving the landlord the final notice!

The perceived consolidation of the Indian Act and Treaty No. 6 both happened in 1876, 121 years ago. We were a party to one, but not to the other. If a census had been taken to determine how many indigenous peoples of Treaty No. 6 were aware of the Indian Act of 1876, we are positive that the result would have been less than 1%. Bill C-79 is so convoluted and caste-creating that again a very small percentage are really aware of its full meaning.

The federal crown should re-prioritize its relationship with treaties and the treaty indigenous peoples by putting Bill C-79 aside and implementing the recommendations within RCAP that deal with treaties and treaty processes. In so doing, we might find that the continuity of treaty protocols across several hundred years serves as a foundation of traditional law whose role and rule is more relevant to us than Bill C-79. In the former, we have self-determination and leverage in our own traditional law. In the latter, there is only a unilateral colonial code of control and authority.

I thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much for your presentation.

Now we'll move on to questions from members. Mr. Finlay.

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

I listened with interest, but I'm wondering whether we're talking about the same thing here, Mr. Lameman.

You're aware that Bill C-79 indicates that these are amendments to the Indian Act if bands desire them. Our understanding is that the chief and the council have to make a decision, and in six cases of the amendments the whole band has to make a decision.

We heard earlier today that there are bands that might wish to take advantage of these changes. In fact, the previous witness indicated that 85% of the bands were opposed to Bill C-79. I presume that perhaps 15% of the bands might not be opposed, and might therefore wish the opportunity to modify in order to increase their powers on their reserves and in their bands where the operation of their own affairs is concerned. Would you care to comment on that?

.1545

Mr. Lameman: Yes, very briefly.

In terms of our study of the proposed changes to the Indian Act, what you're mentioning here is a carrot. I say carrot because in the way it's set up, there's a provision to opt in, but once you opt in you can't opt out. And another thing that concerns us greatly is that you can't take only a portion of it. You have to take all of it or nothing. The last time I checked, we were still living in a democratic society, but it seems that when it comes to the relationship between the first nations and the crown, there is a one-sided, authoritarian set-up.

With regard to whether or not we are talking about the same thing, definitely we are. As we mentioned in our presentation, though, amending the Indian Act is not the answer. The answer is the treaty processes that we are involved in at the present time. Even as I sit here, our elders are meeting in Enoch First Nation, discussing a protocol to set out the treaty discussions for treaty clarification and treaty implementation in the future. At the same time, we're being faced with these amendments to the Indian Act. You have to make that decision. So what are you saying? Are you going to legislate us out of existence, or are you going to give us a chance to sit as equals with you?

I know this initiative is 121 years too late. When our forefathers sat down and signed a treaty in 1876, there should have been a process in place to have further treaty discussions as we proceeded, as time passed. However, you didn't do that until 121 years later.

Mr. John Finlay: You characterize it as a carrot, Mr. Lameman. If you don't like the carrot, you don't have to take it.

I am very pleased that the Enoch First Nation is discussing the protocol. We heard earlier today about the framework agreement initiative in the province of Manitoba. It's nice to know that the Indians you represent, your confrères or colleagues, and other first nations in Alberta are following a similar path. I would suggest you keep right on following it.

There are some first nations that aren't quite that far along. They don't have a framework agreement in place in their respective provinces. So perhaps they would like to take advantage of this small step towards independence and towards first nation control of their own affairs. That's what the bill is about.

We heard from the last witness that the aboriginal royal commission spent $60 million in five years. The witness suggested that we should get right on with it, immediately, and get it all wrapped up. We were told it shouldn't take twenty years. Well, I'm going to suggest for all of us that we'd better get some reality into our timelines. If it takes five years to produce a report on how to proceed, it may well take twenty years in order to reach the target we're all aiming at. It may take thirty years. It's certainly going to take longer if we don't get started on it. It may go one step at a time for those who are ready for one step at a time, and maybe fifteen steps at a time for those who are able to do fifteen steps at a time. But we're certainly not going to get there by not starting on the road. The journey into the future starts with the first step. That's what this bill is about - the first step for first nations that are not in as advantageous a position as others.

The Chairman: Mr. Bachand.

.1550

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Lameman. It is true that it is important to take the first step, but we have to know in which direction it should be taken. That is what I take from your presentation, and I think you drew a quite and eloquent parallel with the events that occurred in 1876.

You told us that in 1876 your ancestors were in the process of signing a treaty, and that at the same time, the Indian Act was being passed in Ottawa. The consultation process did not work very well at that time either, because you mentioned that only 1 per cent of your people were aware of it.

Am I to understand you are making a connection with what is happening today? Are you saying that you should sit down around a table with government representatives and modernize the treaty rather than accepting amendments to the Indian Act? Is this a fair statement of your views?

[English]

Mr. Lameman: Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, is it open for me to ask a question too?

The Chairman: No, it is not. You could respond to the question that was just asked of you, though. The questions are from this committee to witnesses - one way.

Mr. Lameman: Oh, just one way. Okay.

The Chairman: The reason you have been asked to witness is to assist members in their deliberations. That's why they ask the questions. Do you wish to respond to Mr. Bachand's intervention?

Mr. Lameman: Yes.

The Chairman: Please do.

Mr. Lameman: I say thank you to him, and what he just repeated is exactly what we mean, that the answer is not more legislation and not more amendments to current policies but to take a look at the treaty process that's already there. It was a process that was agreed to by both your forefathers and mine. At that time when we sat down together, we had something you wanted. And our forefathers, in their benevolence, extended their hand to you. They allowed you to come into our lands to live among us, to share this beautiful country with us. That sharing was supposed to have continued, but somewhere along the line the non-indigenous peoples that came to our lands got more than their share of things in this country.

I think we need to revisit that sacred treaty relationship that exists between the ancestors of the crown and my ancestors, and the descendants of the crown along with people like myself, my children, and my grandchildren after me, because I think if we don't take a serious look at the situation we're in together, then we're headed for very, very serious trouble in the future. I don't mean that as a threat; I mean as far as the environment is concerned, as far as socio-economic conditions in this land are concerned.

It's a pity that in this day and age, in a country as rich as this, first nations peoples are living in third world conditions - maybe not even third world; maybe fourth world. So I thank you for your perception.

The Chairman: Thank you very much. This concludes this part of the public hearings.

Mr. Ron Lameman, I want to thank you very much for your presentation.

Mr. Lameman: Thank you.

The Chairman: Goodbye.

If the facilitator is in the room, we would like to know if there are other witnesses who might have appeared early who are prepared to present.

.1555

A voice: There is a gentleman here named Ernie Bruno, from the Alexander Band. He would like to speak Métis.

The Chairman: Has he been scheduled to present today?

Mr. Ernie Bruno (Alexander Band): Our chief, Stanley Arcand, was supposed to be here. There's somebody else representing him. I'd rather have my own chief here talking. I don't want to have somebody we don't know representing us.

The Chairman: To the facilitator, I'd like to ask you something. Chief Stanley Arcand was represented by Ron Lameman, who told us he was mandated by the others to speak on their behalf. Is there someone challenging that position?

A voice: Yes, this gentleman here is challenging that position. He's an Alexander Band member. His name is Bruno.

The Chairman: Okay, I will suggest a ruling, committee members. You can challenge it, if you wish. With your consent, I would like to strike from the record the presentation we just heard. Or should we verify that he is in fact mandated by the chief?

A voice: He was mandated by the Confederacy of Treaty 6 First Nations.

The Chairman: I've been corrected. There's something to be cleared up here. The person who spoke in lieu of Chief Stanley Arcand was speaking from the Confederacy of Treaty 6 First Nations. His name is Ron Lameman. He's the interim executive director. Is that information correct?

A voice: I think Ron is still outside the room. Do you want me to get him and verify if that information is correct?

The Chairman: Yes, please do. Please get Ron.

Mr. Lameman, there's a gentleman who claims that your presentation might not have been representative of Chief Stanley Arcand, who was there to speak from the Confederacy of Treaty 6 First Nations. How do you respond to that?

Mr. Lameman: I just came from a meeting of the chiefs in Enoch First Nation. They appointed me to come here to speak on behalf of the Confederacy of Treaty 6 First Nations. I'm not here on behalf of any one first nation. I'm here on behalf of the 17 first nations in this territory.

The Chairman: I accept that explanation. What you have presented is on record and will stay. The person wanting to testify is not on the list. Therefore, we will move to the list. Is there anyone there to be a witness who is on the list?

Mr. Bruno: Can I have a moment with you?

The Chairman: No, you cannot. I'll speak to the facilitator only, please.

.1600

Mr. Bruno: The reason I say this is because we have a chief who was supposed to be here representing us. But he's not here, so where does that leave us?

I had an appointment with you people. He knew he was supposed to be here representing the Confederacy of Treaty 6 First Nations. This person who was here just a while ago was talking for a lot of people he doesn't know.

I am talking from the Alexander Band, which is where I am from. I know what's going on there, which is why I would like at least two minutes or even a minute with you people. You don't have to respond to me, but just let me tell you what I have to say.

The Chairman: Committee members, do you agree that we give this individual 15 minutes?

Mr. John Finlay: Is the Alexander Band a member of the Confederacy of Treaty 6 First Nations, Mr. Chairman?

The Chairman: I don't know, but will it matter?

Mr. John Finlay: Yes.

The Chairman: Mr. Finlay, ask your question please.

Mr. John Finlay: Is the Alexander Band a member of the Confederacy of Treaty 6 First Nations?

Mr. Bruno: I am from the Alexander Band, yes.

Mr. John Finlay: Is that band part of the Confederacy of Treaty 6 First Nations?

Mr. Bruno: Yes, I am.

Mr. John Finlay: Okay, I'll go along with Mr. Bachand, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: We'll agree to allow you 15 minutes.

Keep in mind, members, that this witness has not been mandated by the Confederacy of Treaty 6 First Nations, but we will accept his testimony for 15 minutes.

Mr. Harper.

Mr. Elijah Harper (Churchill, Lib.): As for this person we are going to hear, is he mandated by the tribal council or is he a band member?

The Chairman: He's not mandated by anyone. This gentleman is speaking for himself right now.

You can make your presentation on your own behalf for 15 minutes.

Mr. Bruno: Okay, thank you.

The Chairman: Could you give us your full name, please?

Mr. Bruno: My name is Ernie Bruno. I'm from the Alexander Band. My treaty number is 404.

One of the reasons I came here today was that I was hoping to talk to you people about Bill C-31 people. Our band, Alexander, has been accepting these people since 1985, when these laws were passed. They accepted them into our band. They're on our band list. They've been collecting money for these people, and these people are being discriminated against.

You people set the law down in 1987 to stop discriminating against these people. Alexander has been collecting money. I have the band list here. All the money that we received is being misused. The proof is here. I could hand it over to MCC after a while.

There are roughly 1,300 members in Alexander. There are 190 to 200 Bill C-31 people already reinstated back into the band. Without these people, our budgets wouldn't be the same. The reason they brought these people in was to boost their budgets.

Now they're discriminating against these people. They are not allowed benefits or anything on the reserve. They have a hard time with medical things when they come in. They have to come and beg the chief, Stanley Arcand, for help. These are people who have never lost their treaty rights. These are people who aren't in Bill C-31. They are still discriminating against their own people. They accepted them on our band list, so why don't these people have the same rights as we do?

I'm not a Bill C-31. I still live on a reserve. The thing is, these people who are being left out are our own people. Our chiefs are discriminating against them, yet you people laid the law down in 1987 to stop this discrimination against Bill C-31 reinstated native people on our band list.

.1605

I have both band lists from the 1980s, when they put all the Bill C-31s back on our band list, and I have an updated band list, which still has Bill C-31s on it. Roughly there are about 200 of them now. They're using them to boost up the population growth to get more money from you people.

One of the reasons I wanted to come here is I wanted to talk to you people. I'm sorry I'm not on your people's agenda, but I had to take this opportunity to talk to you people. Hopefully you'll listen.

Stop discriminating against our own people. That's what I'm asking the chiefs.

I'm not talking for the Confederacy of Treaty 6 First Nations or anything. I'm here talking on my own, because I see a lot of what goes on in those reserves.

Basically that's all I have to say. If you have any more questions, I'll be glad to try to answer them for you.

The Chairman: Okay. I don't think we'll allow questions, because although your intervention seems very serious and very important, unless the members disagree with me, I don't see the relationship between it and the bill we have been mandated to review, Bill C-79.

I suggest that if there is any misuse of funds or of numbers, it be reported through the normal channels. If you don't know what they are, you could start with your member of Parliament. That is my suggestion to you. If there is anything illegal going on, it should be reported.

I thank you very much for your intervention.

We will suspend proceedings until 4:40 p.m. our time. Thank you.

.1608

.1640

The Chairman: Do we have before us Roy Littlechief from the Siksika Urban Task Force?

Mr. Ben Fleury (Individual Presentation): And Ben Fleury.

Mr. Brian Littlechief (Individual Presentation): Roy is not here and the task force is not here, but I am Brian Littlechief, and I'm here because I'm an off-reserve Indian from Calgary.

The Chairman: My question is this. We are at 2:40 p.m. Edmonton time. We have scheduled, from the Siksika Urban Task Force, Roy Littlechief. Is Roy Littlechief the person in the centre?

Mr. Littlechief: Roy Littlechief is not in the centre.

Mr. Fleury: Roy couldn't make it, so Brian here is representing him. Roy and I were supposed to give a presentation together, and I was the only one who could show up.

The Chairman: I see three persons at the table. Could you tell me who all three persons are, please?

Mr. Fleury: My name is Ben Fleury and with me is Brian Littlechief.

The Chairman: Now what I need to determine is if you have been mandated by the task force to speak on their behalf, or if you are presenting on your own, on behalf of yourself.

Mr. Littlechief: On behalf of myself.

The Chairman: Both of you?

Mr. Fleury: On Brian's behalf, yes.

The Chairman: No, I need to clarify if you have been mandated explicitly by the task force to speak on behalf of the task force.

Mr. Littlechief: No.

Mr. Fleury: I was, by Roy Littlechief. We were supposed to show up here together, but Roy didn't show up.

The Chairman: I understand, but you're not on the schedule, so I'm trying to determine...

I think what we will do is accept your presentation on your behalf, both of you. It won't change anything; it's just for the record who you represent. We will accept your testimony on your own behalf, and we will allow 30 minutes. You may begin now.

Mr. Fleury: My name is Ben Fleury. My great-great-grandfather signed Treaty 6 in September 1876. The reason it took so long for him to sign it was he wanted to make sure the Blackfoot Indians and the Sarcee Indians of Treaty 7 made sure what the government was saying was going to live up to their promises.

We are here to address the changes to the Indian Act, Bill C-79. Our appearance here in no way condones this process of arbitrary legislation. In reality and in fact this process is not only patronizing; it is in itself genocidal. It is patronizing not only of the first nations whose very existence is at stake but of the Canadian public, as this process is giving the illusion of participation by the first nations, and most importantly, that it was initiated by the first nations.

The first nations' intent was to abolish the Indian Act with their consent and their undertaking. The first nations have a clear vision of what self-government means to us, not what the government thinks self-government should be for the first nations. In this version a band or reserve is brought down to the level of not even a provincial power but that of a municipal authority.

Proposed paragraph 2(1)(a) clearly shows the government's intention of doing away with the first nations people as a race. By the government's definition, their obligations by treaty would no longer exist and their fiduciary responsibilities at all levels would end, leaving the first nations open to attack from other corporate entities and governments.

It must be realized that these treaties were made for a reason. First of all, they recognize the fact that the first nations were the original people of this land and that what happens to this land cannot be done without the consent of the first nations. It is recognized not only by every succeeding Constitution but also within the Royal Proclamation of 1763 that the first nations must be dealt with as nations and that any actions taken must be done with the consent and knowledge of the first nations.

.1645

This right to self-determination is not only recognized by the Constitution, but more importantly by the United Nations Human Rights Charter. But the Government of Canada for hundreds of years seemed to think and behave as if it were immune from these humanitarian and ethical doctrines the world observes.

This secret cabinet document states that the government has two vital and main objectives to reduce its fiduciary responsibility and to strip the first nations of their inherent power and authority down to the municipal level. It also states that the rejection of the inherent authority clause may cause the chief steering committee to denounce the entire process, and this will focus some media attention on the apparent failure of the native agenda.

In this secret document it clearly states on page 13, number 8, that it would reduce considerably the minister's role and the fiduciary responsibilities for Indian land management under the alternative legislation.

When the British crown made these treaties, they made sacred promises with the first nations of this country. These promises pale in comparison to what the first nations have given in blood and land. First it was the land. Since first contact, the European people have benefited from building their fires and their houses with our timber. Secondly, our philosophy of man having free will and determination was not lost to the civilized nations in the world today, yet these very basic and sacred rights are denied to the first nations. These sacred rights cannot be set aside lightly by any race or nation of people.

From the very beginning there have been trillions of dollars worth of wealth that has been taken from this land, from gold, silver, uranium, to all forms of natural resources. We have even given our lives, from living in extreme poverty today to giving our lives in defence of our land. We didn't have to, but we did.

The government is threatened for no reason whatsoever by its belief in our traditional and constitutional right to self-determination. There has never been a situation where any first nation wanted to overthrow the government. We have always endeavoured to live as equals and to live in co-existence. It is a third level of government, with the first nations being equal. And what happens to them? That is why the government is intent on relegating the first nations to the municipal level. After that, if that first nation cannot under any circumstances call itself a nation any more, they will be stripped of all powers, both constitutional and traditional.

If these bands get into serious financial difficulty, they can be sued as corporate entities. Their land and fees simply would be taken away to pay for the arrears. The land would be taken away forever. It would be just a matter of time before there would be no reserves left - for that matter, no first nations people. The government would say the bands have the responsibility to take care of your needs; we are no longer fiduciarily responsible.

The reality is that the majority of bands would cease to exist as entities. It would be the end of the first nations. It would be an end to a race of people, a people that have given so much and that have received so little.

This was all made possible by two very vital sections, sections 2 and 69. The first absolves the government of its promises and changes the first nations into corporate entities. The special relationship of nation-to-nation dialogue no longer exists. Secondly, the fiduciary responsibility is disintegrated by section 69, which states that there is also a bar to crown liability, which is consistent with the responsibility undertaken by the band council.

What happens to the bands that refuse to go along with this process and protest? You can be reassured that the government will do everything in its power to coerce the band to agree, from it withholding vital funds to replacement of members that are more agreeable to what the government wants.

.1650

This has been done in the past, and as it is an effective tool for the government, there's no reason why they should stop. It is made clear by this dictatorial legislation. It gives the appearance of participation, but make no mistake, this is not what the first nations meant by being part of the process to change the Indian Act.

This whole process was conceived and implemented by Jean Chrétien and Ron Irwin. The first nations wanted to address and make changes to the Indian Act out of their own ideas and vision. We all agree that the Indian Act in the past and present has been and is very destructive to the first nations. Who better would know where and how to change it than those who have lived and died by this instrument of destruction? We are under no illusion about the government's intention of stripping of our identity. This we see clearly.

But in turn, you will be a part of this genocide of a benevolent and caring people. Every time you look in the mirror, you will know that you had a part in the spilling of the blood of the first nations at the table of peace and friendship. The future generations on both sides will remember what happened and who participated. You must look hard and deep within yourself and ask if you can afford this process to exceed in eliminating a race of people.

The Chairman: Does that conclude your presentation?

Mr. Fleury: Yes.

The Chairman: Are there any questions or comments from members?

There being none, thank you very much for your presentation.

Mr. Fleury: Thanks a lot.

The Chairman: I would like to know if any other witnesses in the building are prepared to present now.

A voice: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Large is here from the Saddle Lake First Nation. On my records I show him as presenting at 3:20 p.m., but he's available now.

.1655

The Chairman: Eric Large is scheduled to present at 3:20 p.m. your time, that's correct. We'd like to know if Chief Cherrilene Steinhauer is there with him.

A voice: No, she's not here.

The Chairman: Will she be coming?

Mr. Eric Large (Councillor, Saddle Lake First Nation): Mr. Chairman, Chief Steinhauer appointed me. I'm Councillor Eric J. Large, Saddle Lake First Nation.

The Chairman: That's wonderful. We can start the presentation at this point. Saddle Lake First Nation Councillor Eric Large is presenting.

Councillor Large, I'm Ray Bonin, chairman of the committee. We have with us Claude Bachand from the Bloc Québécois, and Elijah Harper and John Finlay from the Liberals.

We have forty minutes together. They belong to you. You may use them in any way that you wish, but we would appreciate it if you would allow some time for questions from members.

Having said that, I turn the floor over to you, Mr. Large.

Mr. Large: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do have a written presentation. It's not lengthy, so there will be plenty of time for questions, although we were somewhat unprepared to thoroughly analyse every item and its implication.

Without further ado, honourable chairperson, I will begin.

It was 121 years ago that our forefathers met with Alexander Morris, the Queen's official representative, in a nation-to-nation meeting and negotiated Treaty No. 6 in 1876, an inter-nation treaty. At the same time as Treaty No. 6 was being negotiated between sovereign nations, the Parliament of Canada was discussing the ways and means of enacting legislative provisions to civilize us Indians by placing us in a legislative straitjacket that would regulate and control every aspect of our lives in the Indian Act of 1876, the likes of which remains with us today.

Today, in the year of 1997, the crown in right of Canada, like a century ago, is proposing to move in contradictory ways. On the one hand, the Government of Canada has announced its policy of the inherent right of self-government based on section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. On the other hand, the Government of Canada proposes to pass legislation known as Bill C-79 that contradicts the position for the inherent right of self-government.

While the Saddle Lake First Nation has many misgivings and much mistrust about the implementation of the inherent right of self-government based on section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, to negotiate agreements, the object and process of which we shall address in the near future, we of the Saddle Lake First Nation have immediate urgent and numerous concerns about Bill C-79.

To address each would be deceptive and yet conforming, deceptive insofar as detailed analysis would give the impression that Saddle Lake approves of or would conform to the proposed legislation and such would be acceptable if cleaned up. Such a position is far from the truth.

Saddle Lake is opposed to the legislation in all its aspects, but one specific aspect is extremely worrisome and, to our first nation, dangerous. Therefore, while our concerns are many and severe, because of the time constraints in this videoconferencing presentation, we wish to concentrate primarily on one major aspect, which in our view is crucial to all other aspects of the proposed legislation and which is harmful to our survival as an Indian nation.

That specific aspect is the provision as stated dramatically in proposed section 16.1. In addressing 16.1, there are some fundamental observations that need to be pointed out that distressed our first nation greatly.

.1700

First is the concept of the municipal corporation. The proposed legislation clearly reveals that the fundamental intent of the legislative enactment is to create - which is in no doubt a fundamental assumption of the inherent right policy also - a municipal-type of first nations government. The evidence of that is especially documented by the provisions of proposed section 16.1, which states specifically:

A band has the capacity and, subject to this Act, the rights, powers and privileges of a natural person.

Black's Law Dictionary, fifth edition, page 307, defines the corporation as

An artificial person or legal entity created by or under the authority of a law or the laws of a state or nation...

Further, also on page 307:

A public corporation is one created by the state for political purposes and to act as an agency in the administration of civil government, generally within a particular territory or subdivision...

Given the overwhelming evidence, legally, legislatively and historically, it is clear that the proposed Bill C-79, through proposed section 16.1, creates Indian municipal corporations. And municipal corporations are further defined as:

a body politic and corporate, created to administer the internal concerns of the district embraced with its corporate limits in matters peculiar to such place. A municipal corporation has a duel character, the one public and the other private, and exercises correspondingly twofold functions and duties: one class consisting of those acts performed by it in exercise of delegated sovereign powers for the benefit of people in general, as arm of the state, enforcing general laws made in pursuance of general policy of the state; and the other consisting of acts done in exercise of power of the municipal corporation for its own benefit or for benefit of its citizens alone. xxx

The second fundamental contradiction is the municipal corporation or inherent right of self-government. Therefore, one of the greatest and most mistrustful aspects of Bill C-79 is that it contradicts the Government of Canada policy and process on the inherent right to self-government.

While we have grave reservations about the policy and process of self-government negotiated agreements, we note that the policy as announced seems to recognize certain aspects of self-government that contemplate certain inherent rights and matters that are internal to our first nations and are internal and integral to the culture of the first nation.

But Bill C-79 seems to dash and contradict those aspects by directly infringing on our inherent and integral matters. Such aspects directly set up restrictions or opens doors in reference to our lands, our forms of government, inheritance, leadership selection, corporate structures, individual ownership, fee simple land holdings, and encumbrances of lands and resources by outside institutions.

How is it then possible for the Government of Canada, on the one hand, to indicate that it wants to develop and establish by negotiated agreement first nations governments, which we as Saddle Lake First Nation have great doubts and fears about, as stated, and on the other hand by legislative action to predetermine those issues by so-called amendments to the Indian Act? These are outright contradictions, Mr. Chairman.

Thirdly, we have been told that the proposed legislation is, by opting into its provisions, a stepping stone to the inherent self-government. But it is precisely at such a juncture that the Saddle Lake First Nation must express its consternation in clear and unambiguous terms.

The negotiation about and entering into Treaty No. 6 in 1876 was a nation-to-nation process, so recognized by both parties, including Her Majesty in right of Great Britain. The guidelines for those nation-to-nation agreements and the principles upon which those negotiations took place had been clearly laid out in the Royal Proclamation of 1763.

.1705

Beyond a shadow of a doubt, and both historically and legally, it is equally clear that the Saddle Lake First Nation, like other first nations of Treaty No. 6, did not give up, relinquish, or in any manner abrogate its inherent rights of self-government and self-determination as exercised at the time of the Treaty No. 6 negotiations. Saddle Lake First Nation did not do so in the process of the mutual signing of Treaty No. 6 by the Indian nations and Her Majesty the Queen in right of Great Britain, nor has Saddle Lake First Nation done so at any time thereafter.

On the one hand, you suggest that the Queen in right of Canada is going to recognize the inherent right to self-government under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. On the other hand, you are saying that by our consent to opting in, Bill C-79 is a stepping stone to the inherent right to self-government through municipal cooperation, rather than through our own inherent treaty recognition and relations. This is an act of conspiracy against our first nation, and it is a betrayal of the nation-to-nation process as put in place by the Royal Proclamation of 1763 and Treaty No. 6.

The Saddle Lake First Nation therefore asks the following question: Must our first nation seek the recognition of the inherent rights of self-government and self-determination to govern ourselves from those who have denied us those rights and abilities to govern ourselves through paternalistic legislation and municipal corporate enterprises; from those who have destroyed our culture and robbed us of our integrity; from those who have shown no respect for our customs, our culture and laws; from those who have demanded obedience to laws and conventions which were not and are not ours, and which we did not and do not accept; from those who have tortured us, assassinated us, integrated us, and assimilated us simply because we want to govern ourselves on our own territory, our own lands; from those who have downgraded us, converted us, cut our hair, forced us to forget our language, took us from our homes and put us into boarding schools; from those who have mocked and destroyed our spirituality because of our race, our ethnicity; and from those who have devolved us of our inherent right of self-government through an opting-in process that makes us municipal corporations?

Mr. Chairman, these may be harsh words, but this is what we think.

On the issue of opting in, Saddle Lake First Nation has never opted in. We have been forced into legislative frameworks that have consistently destroyed our inherent rights of self-government and self-determination, destroyed our treaty relationship of nation-to-nation status. We will not opt in now, nor will we do so in the future. Bill C-79 should be withdrawn and destroyed as a viable proposal for the regulation of Indian peoples.

With the proposed legislation of Bill C-79, with the inherent right of self-government policy, and with the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, our people are bewildered, frustrated and confused. Many of our people are fearful of the future. Our elders are in meetings, attempting to come to terms with treaty rights, the rights of our people. Surely we must say to the Government of Canada that it should protect our rights as laid down in the Royal Proclamation of 1763; preserve the trust relationship between Her Majesty and our people; recognize our inherent right to self-government as put in place by Treaty 6; restore our place as nations, not as municipal corporations; and empower our people with hope for the future.

Mr. Chairman, the Saddle Lake First Nation requests that Bill C-79 be rejected by the standing committee.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much for your presentation.

I now open for questions or comments by members.

[Translation]

M. Bachand.

Mr. Claude Bachand: Thank you for your presentation, M. Large. If I understood your main point correctly, you are saying that the more things change, the more they remain the same. I think you drew a parallel between what happened in 1876 and what is happening today.

.1710

In 1876, at the very time the Queen's representatives were signing Treaty No. 6 with you, the Indian Act, with all its rigidity, was being passed.

Am I mistaken to say that you think the Indian Act, both in 1876 and today, is probably an obstacle to improving the social, economic and political conditions of the Aboriginal peoples in Canada? Is it hampering you from taking charge of yourself? Are we not seeing today a repeat of what happened in 1876?

Have I understood you correctly?

[English]

Mr. Large: It's more of a devolution of Her Majesty's trust responsibility. That was the understanding in 1876, that Her Majesty, through her agents or ministers of the crown, would continue to have that trust responsibility.

But now, through this new legislation, the proposed Indian Act Optional Modification Act, the minister is gradually doing away with its trust responsibility and placing it on the chief and council, who are to have ultimate authority, as it were, plus the liability, should there be any.

A further fear by extension is with the self-government policy. You'll see that a lot of the jurisdiction remains with the province, and with this gradual devolution of the federal government either to the chief and council or to the province, to a third party, it would no longer be responsible for us.

The Chairman: Are there any other questions or comments? Mr. Finlay.

Mr. John Finlay: It's an interesting presentation. Mr. Chairman. I don't want to get into some of the rhetoric and some of the language. It obviously hearkens back a long time. I don't think any of us were here.

You said, though, that you will not opt in now or in the future, and I would accept that is quite your right. You say that your people are bewildered and confused. My suggestion there would be that what's required is leadership.

You mentioned the royal commission. I haven't read all six volumes, and I doubt that you have, but I've read enough of it to know that the commissioners recognized that unless there's some grouping among the first nations, the inherent right to self-government is going to be impossible to implement.

My question would be, how do you in the Saddle Lake First Nation see some cooperative undertaking with other first nations in order to get this much-sought-after solution and much-sought-after inherent right on the way, in line with what the royal commission has suggested?

Mr. Large: That's a very good question. We hope to work together with other Treaty No. 6 first nations. About two or three years ago we did make some inroads into discussions to recognize Treaty No. 6 as to its true spirit and intent and with a view to its implementation. That is still ongoing.

Mr. John Finlay: That's good to hear. I hope that will be pursued, Councillor, with all haste and concern. Forget about the opting in or opting out if that's not what you wish to do.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you.

.1715

Thank you.

Are there any more comments or questions from members? No?

Councillor Large, we still have some time. If you wish to make closing remarks, you're welcome to do so.

Mr. Large: I only wish to thank the standing committee for giving us the opportunity to make a presentation regarding Bill C-79.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Councillor Large.

Chief Florence Buffalo and Wilton Littlechild are not scheduled to appear until 4 p.m., Edmonton time, but if they are present we are prepared to hear from them. In that regard, it would be very advantageous if the facilitator in Edmonton would let us know as soon as they come in. We can then get started as soon as we can.

We have a vote at 6:30 p.m., Ottawa time. Although we will give preference to the witnesses, it's a very important vote, so it would be best that we hear this testimony as soon as possible.

I understand, though, that there are people there who are interested in speaking to us. Is the committee willing to listen to them? My feeling is that I don't think we should let people just drop into the room to speak simply because they wish to do so. If they're not on the agenda, they should not be considered.

For the benefit of the members, however, Rowland Woodward is from the Fort McMurray First Nation, and John Malcolm is from the Christina River Paul Cree Band.

Did you gentlemen wish to make a presentation on your own behalf, or have your band councils agreed, either by resolution or by consensus, to authorize you to speak on their behalf?

A voice: Mr. Chairman, we have the chief and council present with us. They ask that I make the presentation for them.

The Chairman: Did you just happen to come by? How is it that you are there today?

A voice: We just drove 500 kilometres to get here from Fort McMurray. We were unaware of the situation that's going on here today. We came to the government to voice our concerns regarding our specific claim with the Paul Cree Band. We also have a serious concern with the Willow Lake Band and our involvement with its present members.

The Chairman: Members, do you agree to hear the witnesses present? Yes?

The members have agreed to hear from you, so please come forward.

I will ask that you name yourselves and your positions on the band council before you start.

Mr. Rowland Woodward (Councillor, Willow Lake Band) My name is Rowland Woodward, and I'm a councillor with the Willow Lake Band.

I'll first give you brief outline of the history of the present circumstances, along with the reasons for the band split. In the Treaty No. 8 area in 1789 -

The Chairman: Just a moment. Before you proceed, I see another individual or two at the table. Will they be presenting also?

.1720

Mr. John Malcolm (Paul Cree Band): I'm doing a presentation for the Paul Cree and this is our chief, Elmer Cree. xxx

The Chairman: Okay. What is your name?

Chief Elmer Cree xxx (Paul Cree Band): I am Elmer Cree, xxx and the presenter is John Malcolm.

The Chairman: Okay. Please proceed.

Mr. Woodward: On August 4, 1899, an adhesion was made to Treaty 8 and was signed at Fort McMurray by J.A.J. McKenna, xxx treaty commissioner; Adam Boushey, xxx Chipewyan headman; and Chief Atukinen Cree, xxx Cree headman.

Although the adhesion was signed by Adam Boushey xxx and Chief Atukinen Cree xxx on behalf of the Chipewyan and Cree Indians of Fort McMurray and the country thereabouts, evidence would seem to indicate that the signatories may have been chosen to represent the two language groups rather than the bands per se.

The Indians of the Fort McMurray area, like most of the Treaty 8 Indians outside of the Lesser Slave Lake and Peace River areas, showed little interest in obtaining reserves for several years after the treaty was signed. They were primarily interested in hunting, fishing, and trapping. Their land did not require protection for some time, because it was not regarded by potential settlers as valuable.

By 1906 the settlement at Fort McMurray was becoming a more permanent home for the Indian people, as indicated by the 1908 report of the inspector for the Treaty 8 region, Henry Conroy. xxx He indicated that the Indians had a large tract of country. Conroy xxx suggested in his report that as a result of the increasing number of oil claims in the area, it would be a good idea to have the people lay out reserves.

On April 27, 1915, the Departments of Indian and Northern Affairs and National Defence made plans to lay out reserves. The man assigned to this task was D.F. Robertson. xxx He first went to the Paul Cree group who were living between the Christina and Clearwater Rivers just east of the Fort McMurray settlement and who had selected reserve land in the same location. This was referred to as Paul Crees Reserve and later became Clearwater Reserve number 175.

Robertson xxx then proceeded to Willow Lake, where he surveyed three reserves located around the lake: numbers 176, 176A, and 176B. Joseph Milton xxx of Willow Lake represented the Willow Lake people. Robertson xxx referred to these groups as people's bands. His official report refers to the Paul Cree Band in a separate group at Willow Lake.

He consulted separately with regard to the selection of reserves, the implication being that no member of one band could have any interest in the land selected by the other. In listing the population figures upon which he based his land allotment, Robertson xxx lists the bands separately.

The system he used in numbering the reserves surveyed suggests that people in DIAND agreed with Robertson xxx that separate bands did in fact exist. The division of the band into two categories reflects a long-standing departmental assumption, no doubt based upon a good deal of thought, that the Paul Cree group was a distinctive unit at least resembling a band and bound together by family ties that were not shared by the other group at Willow Lake.

By the 1960s most members of the Fort McMurray Band were not resident of their reserve. Some members of the Willow Lake Reserve resided at Nanduck xxx and on surrounding crown land. In 1969 officials of Indian Affairs expressed an interest in obtaining a block of land in Nanduck xxx and suggested that Reserve 176B be surrendered in exchange. Willow Lake Band members, however, refused to surrender 176B.

.1725

The Paul Cree descendants squatted an area bordering the Fort McMurray town limit. Life was extremely hard living in that area, and in 1975 they appealed to the Gregoire Lake Band members to take them in temporarily. The Department of Indian and Northern Affairs indicated it would not be feasible to build a road and a bridge to their reserve at that time. The Willow Lake group agreed to house them on their reserve temporarily.

This temporary arrangement has proven to be the catalyst in the present explosive situation. In the Willow Lake Reserve, friction has steady mounted between the two groups. This present situation was not considered by DIAND when they made the original agreement to allow the Clearwater people to reside on the Gregoire Lake Reserve. It is now 1997, and the Willow Lake original band members feel that adequate time has been given for other arrangements for the Clearwater people residing in the Willow Lake Reserve to move back to their own reserve. This move has to be made before the deteriorating atmosphere escalates any further.

The Gregoire Willow Lake people adopted circular H4, and wanted complete separation of the Fort McMurray Band into two distinct bands: the Willow Lake Band, Nos. 176, 176A and 176B, and the Paul Cree Band, Christina River, Reserves 175 and 175A.

The Chairman: Does this conclude your presentation?

Mr. Woodward: Yes, it does. John will continue his.

The Chairman: John, please carry on.

Mr. Malcolm: Mr. Chairman, first of all I'd like to thank you gentlemen for hearing our concerns.

Our biggest concern is the Paul Cree Band. We have the proof that... Back in 1899, the Paul Cree Band was originally created. In 1921, the land was surveyed on the Clearwater River and the Christina River junction. We have the member that was present there - he's not here at this time, but it's Elmer Cree, our chief's father. He's 104 years old, and he's been waiting since the treaty was signed, and is still waiting for his reserve to be developed. Through the red tape and the misrepresentation by our previous chiefs and our present chief at the Gregoire Lake Band, we're unable to achieve this goal of returning home.

There are over 500 people who belong to the Fort McMurray No. 468 first nation. There are only a little over 80 people who are allowed to vote. A membership code was passed in 1993, by 19 members out of the 500.

Accordingly, this is what our problem is today. Due to the membership code, the government has been unable to help us, and now we have gone beyond their membership code. We have proof from the people that they want this division. We have over 60 voting members out of 80 who want the split between the Christina River Paul Cree Band and the Gregoire Lake Band.

.1730

We were asked to work with the chief by xxx Mr. Ken Kirby - to cooperate with Chief xxx Berenice Cree. When she was publicly asked, she threatened our council members with removing their membership, and she wanted to argue with them. Needless to say, our members did not cooperate with her and we didn't argue. But we're unable to work with this lady, although the government is asking us to. We have 98% of the 468 nation members that want this done, and over 75% of the voting members that are allowed to vote, from this illegal membership that was passed.

We're at a state where, as Mr. Woodward says, the friction is starting to create animosity amongst the members. We are in desperate need for some help here, unless we take things on owr own, which is what we did last year, and thank God there was no violence or anyone hurt at that time.

But we are at a state here today where all the members want this done. Due to the uncooperativeness of one member and a few of her followers, all these people are being held back - over 500 people.

Our specific claim is in with the government. Minister Ron Irwin has let us know that it has been under review. But it's been under review since September 1995, and nothing has been done about it. Our oldest member is 104 years old, and he's still waiting.

We feel that a priority should be put on our claim and a priority should be put on our concerns, due to the fact that we have the oldest member in Canada that we know of, and he's being neglected.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you for your presentation.

Now to members. Are there any questions or comments?

[Translation]

M. Bachand.

Mr. Claude Bachand: I would like to start by congratulating you. You said at the beginning that you travelled 500 kilometres to present your brief and state your problems. First of all, I would like to ask for some clarification. I was reading a document that gives a brief description of the geographical location of the First Nations in Alberta.

You refer to the Paul Cree Band or the Tall Cree Band. Are they the same? Apparently there is a Tall Cree Band in Alberta. Can you tell us whether your two bands - you did say they were separated at one point - are far away from each other today? These are the Willow Lake and Paul Cree or Tall Cree Bands.

[English]

Mr. Malcolm: Willow Lake Band and Paul Cree Band are about 20 miles apart.

The Chairman: Excuse me. We need to clarify whether it's Tall Cree Band or Paul Cree Band.

Mr. Malcom: Paul Cree Band.

The Chairman: Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand: I see. As you know, today you are appearing before a committee that is studying Bill C-79. I would like to know what you think about Bill C-79, which makes some amendments to the Indian Act. We have heard from many bands so far, and they said that there have been very few consultations. You have just given us a brief historical overview of your two bands, and the reason for the division.

Personally, I find that very interesting, and I took copious notes while you were speaking. As the critic for Indian Affairs, I am interested in these matters. However, I would also like to know whether you heard about Bill C-79. If so, what is your position on it? If you have not heard about it, please tell us why. Is it because you do not know what it is, because no one got in touch with you, because you were not consulted at all? Tell us about your reaction to Bill C-79. Are you familiar with it?

[English]

Mr. Woodward: Bill C-79 is the bill changing the Indian Act towards self-determination.

.1735

All we're asking for is a chance to vote. We are not represented by any band. We are represented by a few people who consider themselves our leaders, but that was a government decision. We as people were not consulted; we as band members were not consulted.

When we talk about self-government, one of things we have to be able to do is to have a vote in any decision that concerns or affects us now or in the future.

Mr. Malcolm: To answer your question, most of us have not heard of that bill. We are aware of what took place back in 1993, but at that time it was kept in their closet, so to speak, and they only allowed certain members to attend the meeting where they voted to pass the self-government bill. Only 19 members out of 500 were allowed to attend that meeting. Most of us didn't even know about it.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand: I see. I will pursue the matter further, because I am not quite clear about this.

First of all, is one of you three the band chief? He is the chief? Okay.

Why do you say that the people were not consulted? The chief is there. Did he consult with his community? If there is only one chief here, is there someone among you three who represents the other band? If I understood correctly, you are saying that your people were not consulted.

[English]

Mr. Woodward: You're mixed up over our chief. Our chief is xxx Elmer Cree. The chief who was looking after the bill is xxx Berenice Cree, from the Gregoire Lake Band. We are two groups that, before the Gregoire Lake Band was formed, wanted to go back to the original groups. The chief who did not consult her members is not here today. She does not cooperate with us at all.

The Chairman: This is the chairman speaking. I understand you've lost the picture. Is that correct?

Mr. Malcolm: That's correct - about 10 minutes ago.

The Chairman: Okay. We will try to bring the picture back. I understand you're on the phone.

I'm told this is a busy time of day for Bell lines, and if we shut down the system, we may lose everything. Do you agree to continue? We can see you. We can see you clearly, so do you agree that we continue asking our questions? You'll be talking to a blank screen, but we can see and hear you clearly.

Mr. Malcolm: That's fine with us. We're just glad that you're listening to us.

The Chairman: Okay. We apologize for the inconvenience, but we will proceed.

[Translation]

Mr. Bachand.

Mr. Claude Bachand: I should perhaps tell you that you are missing something by not seeing me, but you are not missing anything by not seeing Mr. Bonin.

I would like to conclude by raising the issue of the female chief who says that she does not consult anyone. I would imagine that you are here to report this to us.

.1740

This chief has to be elected from time to time. Tell us why you do not simply elect somebody else who consults people. The only thing that I can gather from Bill C-79, is that your predecessors were against it and that you did not hear anything about it because this woman, who probably received some correspondence, never informed her community about it.

Explain why you do not vote her out of office during the next election, so that when important bills such as Bill C-79 are tabled, the chief consults both the council and the community.

[English]

Mr. Woodward: In the real world, that would be true, but when we get back to the reserve level, when we get back to the community level, we don't have that option. Most of us are not allowed to vote. I went to a band meeting and they called the RCMP who then escorted me out.

So when you use logic to ask questions like this, we can answer you with logic, but in the community where we come from, we are not dealt with logically. That's why we had to come to Edmonton and that's why we're talking to you to say that there are people out here who are not being represented properly.

The Department of Indian Affairs keeps changing their rules to keep their type of chiefs and councils in office, whereas the people have totally different ideas of what they want.

The Chairman: Mr. Finlay.

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

I have a little follow-up question. You said that you drove 500 kilometres to Edmonton in order to deal with this matter. Can I ask you who you were going to see in Edmonton? We're very interested in what you say, but we are a little farther away than 500 kilometres. Who were you going to talk to in Edmonton?

Mr. Woodward: Mr. Ken Kirby, xxx I believe, the regional -

Mr. Malcolm: We were going to try talking to Mr. Ken Kirby. xxx We were aware that we had to make an appointment, but we've tried to make appointments with Mr. Kirby xxx previously and he won't meet with us. He just tells us to work with the chief of the Gregoire Lake Band, Berenice Cree. xxx She is very uncooperative.

Even though their present membership code states that if the majority of the members want the Paul Cree Band recognized and they want the membership code abolished, she doesn't abide by her own code. We have over a 75% majority of the voting band members - that's 60 out of 80 - that wants the two bands recognized, and she refuses to acknowledge any of this. She refuses to meet with us. When she's openly confronted she threatens members about their jobs, their houses and their memberships if they don't do as she tells them. She runs it like a dictatorship in its truest form.

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

What is xxx Mr. Kirby's title, please?

Mr. Malcolm: He's the director general of DIAND.

Mr. Woodward: Regional.

Mr. John Finlay: Regional director general for what, for -

A voice: For Alberta.

Mr. John Finlay: - Treaty No. 6 or for the whole of Alberta?

Mr. Malcolm: For all of the province of Alberta, I believe.

Mr. John Finlay: Thank you, sir. I'm getting a little curious again. How did you learn of our teleconference with the chiefs of various communities with respect to Bill C-79?

Mr. Woodward: Call it goodwill of the Creator. It was by God and by good timing, I guess.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. John Finlay: You mean the building you're in is where xxx Mr. Kirby normally works and you found out about it - or am I guessing too wide of the mark?

Mr. Malcolm: You hit the nail on the head. We came here today to discuss our concerns with Mr. Kirby's xxx group because we know that it's almost impossible to meet with him. We've made several attempts to meet with him during the last couple of years.

.1745

The Chairman: There being no more questions or comments, I want to thank you very much for your presentation. It's a coincidence, but it's a good one, that you were there today, and we're glad that you were able to participate. Thank you very much.

Mr. Woodward: Thank you on behalf of Chief Elmer Cree xxx and Chief Emiline Cheechan xxx of their respective bands.

The Chairman: Thank you.

We'd like to know from the facilitator if Chief Florence Buffalo and the legal counsel are present.

A voice: No, they're not.

The Chairman: Then we will suspend these hearings until 6 p.m., which is 4 p.m. your time.

A voice: Somebody else who is scheduled to appear is here. Did you want to go ahead with that one?

The Chairman: Who is the person who is there?

A voice: Esther Prince is here.

The Chairman: She's supposed to be presenting with Valerie Arcand. Is Valerie there also?

A voice: Yes, she's here as well.

The Chairman: Okay. We are prepared to hear from them now. Do you have the picture yet in Edmonton?

A voice: No, we don't.

The Chairman: Would you ask Ms Prince and Ms Arcand if they are willing to present even though they cannot see us? We can see and hear them very clearly.

A voice: Mr. Chairman, we're just waiting for Esther to come back. She should be here momentarily. Valerie has agreed to go ahead with the video conference without the picture.

The Chairman: Okay, thank you.

[Translation]

You can take turns eating.

[English]

We'll suspend the meeting until Valerie is there. What we will do is suspend for 15 minutes. Our technicians tell us that we can regain the picture in that time. However, if the representatives from the Samson Cree Nation arrive before that time, we will have to hear from them first.

The meeting is adjourned.

.1750

.1818

The Chairman: We will resume our public hearings.

My name is Ray Bonin. I'm chair of the committee. Thank you very much for being with us today.

I have with me, from the Bloc Québécois, Claude Bachand, and from the government side, John Murphy, John Finlay, and Charles Hubbard.

We have 40 minutes together. Those minutes all belong to you. You may use them whatever way you prefer. We would appreciate it if you would allow some time for questions from members.

Before you start, I would appreciate it if you would name the other people you have with you for the record.

Mr. Myers Buffalo (Elder, Samson Cree Nation) My name is Myers Buffalo, and I am an elder.

.1820

The Chairman: I see before us Chief Florence Buffalo, Wilton Littlechild, legal counsel. I think I see one of the elders, Myers Buffalo. There is a fourth person. Could I have the name, please?

Mr. Mel Buffalo (Adviser, Samson Cree Nation): I'm Mel Buffalo, adviser to the Samson Cree Nation.

The Chairman: Thank you very much. Having done all this homework, let's proceed with your presentation.

Chief Florence Buffalo (Samson Cree Nation): Let me begin by thanking the standing committee for the opportunity to present the Samson Cree Nation's position on Bill C-79.

With me here this afternoon are elder Myers Buffalo and Wilton Littlechild.

I am Maquawkskos. xxx That's my Cree name. They call me Florence Buffalo, chief of the Samson Cree Nation.

You will know that our council assembled on November 22, 1996 and passed a council resolution rejecting both the process and Bill C-79.

Consequently, we are joining those witnesses who come before you to express their opposition to the proposed Indian Act Optional Modification Act. While I disagree with the process, I also disagree with this process of video conferencing that you have chosen as a committee. We cannot simply stand back and not let our voices be heard.

In doing so, it presents a very serious dilemma for me as chief. At the outset, when we became aware of Minister Irwin's proposal, I indicated that the Samson Cree Nation is involved in a very substantial lawsuit against the federal government, parts of which involve the Indian Act. We have to be very careful with our participation so as not to jeopardize in any way our legal action.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, it is my hope that this committee will respect that this appearance and our intervention will be without prejudice and nothing will be used in any way against the Samson Cree Nation.

May we have that assurance for the record, Mr. Chairman?

Thank you.

.1825

The Chairman: I am not a lawyer, but this is a public hearing, and whichever way the information is being used by the public, the members of this committee have no control. I cannot assure you that what is being put on record here will not be used by others.

This committee is a committee of all parties - the Bloc Québécois, the Reform, and the Liberals - but it is not a committee that works under the direction of the government or of the Liberals. This committee is autonomous in its work and it answers to the House of Commons. I cannot guarantee you that the information you put on record will not be used. I don't have the power to do that.

Chief Buffalo: Thank you. I'll continue.

While you have no doubt heard the many reasons, legal and otherwise, that the vast majority of first nations across Canada have given their opposition to Bill C-79, the Samson Cree Nation will refer to our initial submission tabled with the chiefs assembly in Winnipeg on September 25, 1996.

I hesitate, Mr. Chairman, to make any comments on the content of Bill C-79 for the reason stated at the outset, that I won't comment on the process issue.

The Samson Cree Nation has stated in the chiefs assembly that we base our position on the same fundamental principles established years ago, with our elders' wise counsel and advice.

Firstly, the recognition of our right to self-determination is our goal. By virtue of this right, we freely determine our political status and freely pursue our economic, social, spiritual, and cultural development.

Secondly, our overall relationship with the federal Crown is based on our understanding of Treaty No. 6.

The Chairman: Excuse me for interrupting. I've been given a ruling from the clerk on the protection of information. I will read it to you. Article 853 refers to witnesses, and it says:

Every witness attending before the House or any committee thereof may claim the protection of the House in respect of the evidence to be given.

Therefore, according to this, you are protected in the information you are providing.

Chief Buffalo: Thank you. So I'll carry on.

The Samson Cree Nation's stand is that Treaty No. 6 confirms the existence of self-determination.

Thirdly, any proposed new federal legislation must recognize Indian government. It is Indian governments that will legislate, execute, and adjudicate Indian laws.

Fourthly, the principle of consent, free and informed consent, with full participation on any proposed changes is essential.

Does proposed Bill C-79 recognize our right to self-determination? We have long believed and argued that indigenous peoples have a right to self-determination. Allow me, please, Mr. Chairman, to refer to recent developments in this regard, because it is on this basis that we have analysed Bill C-79.

.1830

I am sure you do not need to be reminded that both the Working Group on Indigenous Populations, through the United Nations, and the Subcommission on the Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities have passed a UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People.

Article 3, you will recall, states the basic principle that indigenous peoples have an unqualified right to self-determination. I quote: ``indigenous peoples have the right of self-determination''. By virtue of that right, they freely determine their political status and freely preserve their economic, social, and cultural development.

Canada was very actively involved at every meeting in Geneva as the UN declaration was being drafted. In fact Canada gave a very historical intervention last fall at the intersessional working group of the commission on human rights on October 31, 1996.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to state at this point that the Government of Canada accepts a right of self-determination for indigenous people. Prior to this, Mr. Chairman, the United Nations committee of experts meeting in Nunook, xxx Greenland, on indigenous self-government concluded that self-determination of peoples is a precondition for freedom, justice and peace both within states and in the international community.

Indigenous peoples have the right of self-determination as provided for in the international covenants on human rights and public international law as a consequence of their continued existence as distinct peoples. This right will be implemented with due consideration to our basic principles of international law. An integral part of this is being heard in fundamental rights of economy and self-government. Again, Canada was present and participated actively with 23 other countries in its conclusions and recommendations of September 1991.

More recently, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples in their final report also concluded a right of self-determination rested in all the aboriginal peoples of Canada, including first nations, Inuit, and Métis people. The right finds its foundation in merging norms of international law and basic principles of public morality. The commission therefore recommends that all governments in Canada recognize that aboriginal people, our nations, are vested with the right of self-determination.

Mr. Chairman, pardon me for going on at length to quote these sections in detail, but I am sure you will quickly see that the proposed Bill C-79 is in direct contravention of these international standards. While the Government of Canada is supporting our right of self-determination internationally, Bill C-79 seriously contradicts these positive advances. It seems that while Canada took a giant step at the United Nations, it took four steps back with Bill C-79.

.1835

You may argue with the international instrument, a report that has not been ratified by the Government of Canada. You would be very technically correct. However, Canada has been at every table and has actively participated. It cannot turn around and say they are of no effect.

There are many other international references I want to make. For example, I want to refer you to article 6 of the International Labour Organization Convention No. 169. In applying this convention, governments shall first consult the peoples concerned through appropriate procedures, and in particular through their representative institutions, whenever consideration is being given to legislative or administrative measures that may affect them directly. Secondly, the consultations carried out in application of this convention shall be undertaken in good faith and in a forum appropriate to the circumstances with the objective of achievement, agreement, or consent to the proposed measures.

I would state, sir, that this committee ought to also use this standard in reference to your review of Bill C-79. Would, for example, video conferencing such as this meet the test?

Let me now turn to other comments on the proposed legislation. I note that when Minister Irwin appeared before the committee he stated first that he wanted to emphasize that this bill does not amend the Indian Act. In checking Black's Law Dictionary, I note an amendment is defined thus:

In legislation, it is a modification or alteration proposed to be made in a bill on its passage, or an enacted law.

The key words are it is a modification proposed to be made in an enacted law. Perhaps that's why it's called the Indian Act Optional Modification Act, because it does amend the Indian Act.

I am also wondering, sir, why did he not propose amending the most damaging provisions of the Indian Act in terms of allowing the intrusion of provincial laws on Indians by way of section 88. Or did those elected chiefs who responded to these letters not comment on these sections at all?

The minister makes a big point of using numbers in relation to the powers. For example, 11 of 87 - on this power would be lost in whole or in part. First nations would get nine new ones to the ten they currently have, while the minister would get six new powers at the expense of the Governor in Council.

.1840

The problem with all this is you cannot give us powers we already have as our inherent right. The UN committee of experts referred to earlier already recognized, at the international level, the areas of jurisdiction of our Indian government. So do both article 31 of the Universal Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and, more recently, article 15 of the American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples of February 1997.

Furthermore, mention was often made of the proposal in clause 28 to extend councillors' terms to three years. Mr. Chairman, the Samson Cree Nation already has three-year terms; the Indian Act did not have to be changed to do that.

Perhaps the most essential of the four principles I began with is the one of free and informed consent. While it is an important aspect of our Treaty No. 6, it is also fundamental to our bilateral relationship with the federal government. Also, it is a requirement of all the international instruments I referred to, as you will have noted from article 6 of ILO Convention 169.

Further, article 20 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples states:

Indigenous people have the right to participate fully if they so choose, through procedures determined by them, in devising legislative or administrative measures that might affect them. States should obtain the free and informed consent of the peoples concerned before adopting and implementing such measures. xxx

In the most recent draft of the American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, xxx please note article 12(2): xxx

Unless exceptional circumstances so warrant in the public interest, states shall take necessary measures to ensure that the decisions regarding any plan, program, or proposal affecting the rights and living conditions of indigenous peoples are not made without the free and informed consent and participation of those peoples, that their preferences are recognized, and that no such plan, program, or proposal that could have harmful effects on these peoples is adopted. xxx

The proposal to opt into Bill C-79 by council resolution does not meet the consent requirements of these standards.

As the minister is fond of making historical references with respect to Indian Act amendments, he'll remember full well when Mr. Crombie gave us assurance, in a meeting on our own Samson Reserve, that we would not be in a worse position as a result of Bill C-31.

.1845

Note also the following bit of history. The Indians of this organization submit that nothing shall be done by the department, by the Indian affairs branch, or by the Government of Canada that at any time will serve to sever the close relationship that has existed from the commencement of the treaties between His Majesty and the Indian nations who have concluded treaties with the crown.

Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, all changes in the Indian Act and regulations pertaining to it should be made only after consultation with the authorized representatives of the Indian nations of Canada in order that they may have a voice in stating such changes as they may think necessary or desirable.

That was from the brief submitted to the parliamentary committee by the Indian Association of Alberta in 1946. There was yet to be another proposed amendment to the Indian Act in Bill C-79. The association also recommended something we do now: that the voice of the Indian should be heard.

As I conclude, I want to refer to a letter from your colleague, Mr. Elijah Harper, on December 13, 1996, to our national chief, Ovide Mercredi, where he stated, and I quote:

My objective is to get rid of the Indian Act and replace it with a system of self-government where we can create our own laws in our own jurisdictions - a relationship that should have been recognized a long time ago. This is my commitment. xxx

This is similar to our objectives and commitments. All our references to the international instruments previously stated support the view that Bill C-79 does not do that.

Mr. Chairman, we would therefore respectfully submit to this committee the following recommendations.

Number one, begin work, as suggested by our national chief, Ovide Mercredi, and the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, on a new relationship based on a bilateral treaty relationship with mutual trust and in a true partnership.

Second, for those first nations that desire specific changes to assist them in their initiatives, perhaps consideration ought to be given to using subsection 4(2) of the current Indian Act to suspend those provisions they have problems with.

Third, consider instead an act to recognize Indian government.

Fourth, withdraw Bill C-79. It doesn't mean failure. You tried.

Also, please remember in your consideration of your report the declarations of the first nations specifically.

The Creator has given us the right to govern ourselves and the right to self-determination. The rights and the responsibility given to us by the Creator cannot be altered or taken away by any other nation. We believe that Bill C-79 alters or attempts to take away from our right to self-determination and consequently should not be considered further or passed.

Thank you for listening to me.

.1850

The Chairman: Thank you very much for a detailed presentation.

We have about four minutes left of our 40 minutes, but I'll make a decision that we extend by about 10 minutes, or more if you want, to allow members to ask questions.

I would like you to refer to your legal counsel as I read the order of the day, in reference to a statement you made about the minister saying he is not amending the act. The order of the day is to address Bill C-79, an act to permit certain modifications in the application of the Indian Act. That needs to be clear. What the minister said was correct. The Indian Act is not being amended. The application of certain parts of the act is what we're dealing with.

Having cleared that up, I will allow committee members 15 minutes each. Fair enough?

Mr. Bachand.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand: Ms Buffalo, I would like to congratulate you on your presentation. It was very original. This is the first presentation that we have heard in a week that refers to international law and international standards, among other things.

Before going any further, I would like to say hello to Mr. Littlechild, who was, I believe, a former member of Parliament in the previous government. I always make a point of greeting people who have spent time here where we are today.

I would like to go back to international standards, because this issue was what was so original in your presentation. If the government were to decide to go ahead with Bill C-79, in violation of international law, as you are claiming it is, would one of the options open to the First Nations, including yours, be to go before the international courts, such as the UN, for instance? You also talk about the American Declaration. Do you foresee appealing to the international courts to complain about the implementation of Bill C-79?

[English]

Mr. Wilton Littlechild (Legal Counsel, Samson Cree Nation): Mr. Chairman, was that question being addressed to me? My name was referred to at the outset.

The Chairman: Well, you are on the list of witnesses.

I'll ask the Bloc member.

[Translation]

To whom is this question addressed?

Mr. Claude Bachand: Perhaps this question is for you, Mr. Littlechild. I had mentioned your name in order to say hello to you, because I know that you are a former parliamentarian.

The Chairman: The question is for Mr. Littlechild?

Mr. Claude Bachand: Yes.

[English]

Mr. Littlechild: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The question refers to both the United Nations and the Organization of American States procedures. The answer to both is yes.

The Chairman: Mr. Finlay.

Mr. John Finlay: Mr. Chairman, I know we're not supposed to mention who's here or when they're here, but this is not the first presentation that has dealt with the international situation. It's at least the second I've heard this afternoon.

Excuse me, Chief. I didn't mean to ignore you. Mr. Bachand has not been present all afternoon, and I just wanted to assure him that other bands and other chiefs have mentioned the issue.

The Chairman: I will intercede here. In all fairness, Mr. Bachand was forced to leave for about 40 minutes this afternoon because he was required to be in the House to ask a question during Question Period. In all fairness, that's the only time he's been absent in the four days.

Mr. Bachand: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. John Finlay: Oh, I didn't mean to suggest...

I have a question about the American Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I take it that's a statement from the indigenous peoples of the U.S., or am I incorrect? Is it an act of the U.S. Congress?

.1855

Mr. Littlechild: It's not an act of the U.S. Congress. What it is, Mr. Chairman, is a new declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples under the auspices of the Organization of American States, which, as you know, Canada belongs to. It's a regional international law instrument that applies to the Americas.

Mr. John Finlay: Thank you.

The Chairman: Have you concluded, Mr. Finlay?

Mr. John Finlay: Thank you, sir.

The Chairman: Mr. Harper.

Mr. Elijah Harper: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to acknowledge Chief Buffalo and Wilton Littlechild.

References have been made to me regarding getting rid of the Indian Act and I'm still pursuing that. You also mentioned the treaties in terms of this process. In terms of addressing treaties, I don't think this process is the appropriate forum.

The appropriate forum would be to have a discussion with the government directly in a nation to nation forum or in a constitutional forum. I believe this process is only a legislative forum. Any things that are dealing with our treaties and aboriginal rights are being dealt with, I believe, in the non-derogation clause.

This is an act that is stand-alone legislation. As stated by the chair, we're not amending the Indian Act. And I believe the forum for the true relationship that we have with the federal government is on a nation to nation basis, which is the treaty basis.

As I've always mentioned, the treaties, the relationships, are about making arrangements ourselves with the governments in this country. But the government itself has a process in this country - the House of Commons and Parliament - and it takes on a number of initiatives. And any legislation that it passes shall not be derogated or abrogated at all because we have not given our consent.

So I ask you...either the chief or the legislative counsel, Wilton, because he's a previous member of Parliament and would know the procedures. This is only a legislative process, not a constitutional discussion, nor is it a treaty process. There is reference to a non-derogation clause in the preamble to this legislation because once this bill is passed, it is the will of Parliament, the supreme law-making institution in this country, that would endorse this and there is no way that treaty and aboriginal rights would ever be derogated without the involvement of aboriginal people. The question I ask... There seems to be a fear that somehow this legislation will affect our treaty and aboriginal rights.

Mr. Littlechild: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have two comments in response to honourable member Mr. Harper.

First of all, the form of the non-derogation clause that's in the current bill does not assure us at this point that it will pass in its current state, in its current wording. As you well know, there's still another procedure in the process you talk about: the process of third reading and going to the Senate.

There's no assurance that the wording as it is now will be the same at the end of the day. So a non-derogation clause as proposed today doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be passed tomorrow.

Secondly, with reference to treaties, you will note from the chief's comments that there were four fundamental principles that we began with years ago, the second of which speaks to treaties, but this intervention only comments on two of those four. We did not touch on the treaty issue for the reasons you stated. This is the wrong forum for that discussion to happen.

.1900

So the chief did not comment on that aspect in her presentation because it's the wrong forum. So she only talked about the first and last elements. You may have noticed from her presentation that it's the one on consent and the first principle of self-determination. So the treaty discussion did not enter in our intervention at all, because it's the wrong forum. We agree.

The Chairman: Thank you very much. This concludes this part of our public hearings sessions. I thank you very much for your very informative presentation. I bid you farewell.

We'll move on now to hear from the Aboriginal Women's Committee for C-31 Issues. Esther Prince and Valerie Arcand are their spokespersons.

Welcome. Thank you for offering before to assist us by presenting early. It would have accommodated us greatly. Unfortunately, the technology needed some time to be perfected and we couldn't hear you at that time. But we do appreciate that you offered. The members want to thank you for that.

My name is Ray Bonin. I'm the chairman of the committee. I have with me members of the committee from the Bloc Québécois, Claude Bachand, and from the Liberals, Elijah Harper, John Finlay, Charles Hubbard and John Murphy.

We have 40 minutes together. Those minutes belong to you. You may use them in whichever way you choose. We would appreciate it if you allow time for questions, though. Having said that, I will invite you to proceed.

Ms Esther Prince (Spokeswoman, Aboriginal Women's Committee for C-31 Issues): I'd like to say good afternoon to all you gentlemen. My name is Esther Prince. I'm with the Aboriginal Women's Committee on C-31 Issues.

We have been advised that your committee will be videoconferencing today, beginning at noon, for Bill C-79. This is to be at Canada Place in Edmonton on the second floor for 40 minutes per group.

It is important that the committee hear from representatives of Alberta treaty Indians who had status under the Indian Act - they are thus directly affected by Bill C-79 - who had been denied band membership. Nowhere in this bill do I see the mention of Bill C-31.

.1905

I would also like to make a comment on the way this procedure is being held. I think this hearing should have been held one on one on the issues that have been placed before you: the Indian Act of Canada and the proposed new law called the Indian Act Optional Modification Act of January 1, 1997.

We have some things to tell you about our Indian people, but first I would like to introduce Richard Long, who has 14 years of experience in this field. I would like him to make comments on these issues. I believe there are four things he wanted to talk about.

The Chairman: Go ahead, Mr. Long.

Mr. Richard Long (Aboriginal Women's Committee for C-31 Issues): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm going to confine my remarks simply to Bill C-79 and five sections of it. I can appreciate that it's getting late in the day in Ottawa and some of you may be a bit tired, so I thank you for your indulgence to hear us at this late hour.

My remarks are specific ones on the bill. The bill, as we understand it, is designed to be an optional piece of legislation. It's not being kind of pushed down the throats of Indian first nations; it is an optional piece of legislation. I appreciate that, and I think that's probably a wise way to proceed.

But I would like to draw your attention to clause 5 of the proposed bill, which reads:

5(1) On receipt of a resolution of the council of a band adopted for that purpose by a majority of the members of the council, the Minister shall, by order, add the name of the band to the schedule.

The schedule of that band is part of this regime.

(2) The Minister may not delete the name of a band from the schedule.

Now that seems pretty straightforward. The band council resolves and sends in a band council resolution. I used to be a band manager once in my life, so I know a lot about BCRs and how they're actually signed. The concern we have has to do not so much with that, but with the concept of a resolution of the council.

One must read that section 5 in connection with new subparagraph 2(3)(b)(ii) of subclause 6(2). That allows for the band to exercise its authority ``by a written resolution assented to in writing by all members of the council of the band''.

Again, that appears reasonable on its face, except when you understand how things actually work at the reserve level, as I do. This means that there can be a band council resolution signed without a meeting. In other words, a form is prepared to take a band of Indians into this act that's circulated to people's houses. When I was a band manager, that happened very frequently. As long as everyone on the council signs it, it's sent in. The minister doesn't inquire any further; he simply adds the band to the schedule.

I'm just wondering why one can't make a provision in this section to amend it in such a way that there has to be a meeting of the band members to take a band into this regime. What is the problem with that? They hold band meetings all the time. I don't think it would cost much. It's dangerous, I think, to allow a piece of paper to be the authority without a meeting. That's my concern about that particular section.

The second part of the bill that causes us concern deals with elections. I know that's a highly contentious issue, as you're all about to face an election yourselves. We will all watch that with some interest, and we'll all vote in our own way.

You know what's involved with an election, and I don't think you'll find that Indian elections are much different. People trying to get elected try to please everybody as best they can. I don't mean that in a frivolous way. You're elected because people believe in what you believe in and you're trying to do a good job.

I mean no criticism of chiefs here, by the way. I'm not a chief-basher and never have been. My concerns have to do with a reality we face out here in Alberta that's as real as my breathing here. I think Elijah Harper knows about this. The problem is the question of electors. It's a nettlesome question.

In new subsection 75(1) it says that ``No person other than an elector can be nominated for the office of chief or councillor''. In new paragraph 74(2)(a) it says that ``The chief of a band is...elected...(a) by a majority of the votes of the electors of the band''. Again, that appears pretty straightforward. Just like in Canada, when we vote for you gentlemen and ladies for Parliament, there is an enumeration and an electors list is prepared. We then all go to the polling station, and if our name is on there we vote.

.1910

We also allow people in our country to vote if they live in the United States or in Timbuctoo, or if they're in prison. So if Canada could be considered one great reserve, we have provision for what we might call off-reserve voting for Canadian citizens. The problem that we have coped with for many years is that in most cases, the bands do not allow the off-reserve members to vote.

As you know, in the Batchewana case in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, both at the trial level and the appeal level, case judgments have been rendered - and I stress that they are not lawyers' opinions - whereby a new feature has been introduced into our way of doing things: the Canadian Constitution stands above the Indian Act. And the information on this case was included in one of the briefs sent to Christine Fisher, all of which have now been received. At both the trial level and the appeal level, the Federal Court of Canada found that Indians off reserve have a right to vote for chief and council.

This provision would seem to set up a regime of electors. With respect, we would ask that you might consider a little more clarification of the word ``elector''. I appreciate that you're not the Department of Indian Affairs, I appreciate that you have a short time in which to work, and I'm not jumping on you. I'm merely asking that Parliament consider an amendment to define that word.

If the Indian bands say it's self-government and that you're not supposed to get into that sort of thing, I would quote the words of Mr. Justice Strayer, of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division. In the Batchewana case, he dealt with that issue specifically. He said that Indians who live off reserve have a direct interest in the affairs of the band in the areas of land or money, and he concluded that the off-reserve members of Batchewana could vote for chief and council. Based on section 15 of the Constitution, the equality section, the public judges found the same thing. They said that if we didn't do that, we'd have two classes of Indians: Indians who can vote and Indians who can't vote. And I'm not talking of Métis here, about non-status Indians, or anything like that. I'm talking about members of a band that everybody recognizes.

So is discussing the word ``elector'' an interference in the work you are tasked to do? I've put it to you that the Federal Court of Canada has been the place where most off-reserves have gone for justice in the past four years. With respect, I think they should go to Parliament, not to the courts.

In a constitutional sense, the Federal Court of Canada seems to be looking at Indians under section 35(2) and under the equality sections of the charter, while looking at the Indian Act Indian as a different, more limited version of an Indian. The court sees no problem with off-reserve Indians having a right to vote, and in ruling section 77(1) of the Indian Act ultra vires.

Now they're in the Supreme Court on the Batchewana case, and I would stand by the work of the judges. If the Supreme Court upholds the case on June 6, then we're going to be faced with a problem. A band of Indians could take this change and say they don't care what the Supreme Court says, that the elector is only the on-reserve. That is what Batchewana did, and what most Alberta bands do today. We will then be back in the Federal Court to challenge this section - the one you're about to consider - as ultra vires in the same manner for the off-reserve, in that it violates section 15 of the Constitution in setting up two classes of Indians, those who can vote and those who can't.

What will be done is the task of funding and taking all the trouble, all the work, to sue a band of Indians under this new section that will be adopted without a definition of ``elector''. With respect, I would therefore think that Parliament should try to look at the thrust of giving progress to the Indian people here. I understand that this is the motivation. In doing that though, I think you also have to understand that we all must operate under the law.

Our basic law is the Constitution, and these are reported decisions, not opinions. The court's reasoning is more important than the decision. We therefore respectfully ask that, in both proposed paragraph 74(2)(a) and proposed subsection 75(1), the word ``elector'' be debated by your committee in relation to the Batchewana decision.

.1915

The final area, and it's kind of related, is proposed section 80.2, on page 13 of Bill C-79. It relieves Her Majesty of any liability for elections under this act, so in a way, it's kind of like a... And I know where it came from, because as you know, in the Batchewana case the Department of Indian Affairs and the Crown were unsuccessful. The judgment was against them, and costs were awarded.

I suppose there's somebody in the department who is worried about costs here. I guess it's natural to try to slip in what stuck out to me as kind of a different thought. I suppose it's probably in the nature of the beast to have the crown try to limit its liability. I suppose that's fine, except...

I'll tell you the hard fact here. In many cases where there's a dispute - -you know of many of them, I'm sure, in each of your ridings - where there's one group of Indians who says ``we're the chief and council'', and another group says ``we're the chief and council'', and everybody's in court, that's really a failure of the law.

But what happens is, the department becomes kind of like the arbitrator, in a way. They listen to both sides. What you hear about is that they recognize one or the other. This is what I call the Pontius Pilate clause - forgive me for quoting the Bible. This is like when Jesus was killed by the people. The Roman governor said ``well, it's not our affair.'' I suppose this is the thinking behind the section. Forgive me for being facetious.

I don't know why the crown should get out of that. Why should it? Maybe it should. Maybe you say, okay, if the band has a fight they should pay for it. But the only body that's going to get rich by this, is the lawyers. We're happy with this. We wonder if the crown...

I could comment on the wills and estates section, and I would probably bore you more than you are, and I won't do that.

I would like to say, as a person, that these ladies were kind enough to ask me to sit with them, and I thank you for your time. The concern I have here, is that the Parliament should not enact legislation that will perpetuate division amongst Indians, or the possibility of it.

This lady here, Valerie Arcand, is a member of the Alexander Band. That's on the computerized band list. She's a full member, but she cannot vote. She cannot participate in programs. If there's a land claim, she doesn't share in it. Why not?

Education, health, anything... This lady here is with the Sucker Creek Band in northern Alberta. She was put on the band list, and then she was taken off. No reason was given. She can't vote. Both ladies are Indians. They look like Indians; they are Indians - in every sense of the word - born or raised on the reservation. There's no non-status, Métis, or Inuit. These are Indian people.

Maybe I'm being myopic myself, but I look at this and I wonder why the laws are structured to allow this sort of thing. It seems to me that if I were excluded from my right to vote for you gentlemen and ladies when the election is called, in June or whenever, that I would get mad: what's wrong with me? And yet this can happen. What happens is the chief and council don't pay attention to the off-reserve.

These sections I've quoted from the bill, dealing particularly with electors, with respect deal specifically with the future rights of off-reserve to vote.

I'll conclude by saying that we will tonight fax a short, two-page summary of our remarks to you for your consideration tomorrow. I'll turn the floor back to Esther Prince, and I thank you for time.

Ms Prince: Okay. I would like Valerie to make comments on these issues.

Ms Valerie Arcand (Spokeswoman, Aboriginal Women's Committee for C-31 Issues): Hello, gentlemen. My name is Valerie Arcand. I'm from the Alexander Band. My Chief is Stanley Arcand. He was supposed to be here today, but he didn't show up. I was kind of hoping he would.

I've raised concerns to him about myself, my children, my sisters and brothers, regarding issues like voting. I was given quite a number of different reasons why I couldn't vote. I couldn't find them quite acceptable. I couldn't accept them.

.1920

I've also asked for housing, not specifically for myself, but for my sisters and brothers, who are full status, and I was denied that, too. Education - I've had the runaround on that.

So I'm kind of wondering how Bill C-79 is going to affect not only me, but my children and my grandchildren. I already have one grandchild. I would like to be able to vote like any ordinary citizen in Canada, and I don't feel I should be limited as to where I should live. I think I can cope well in both worlds - something I have proven.

I would just like to ask the House of Commons if they can perhaps do something to help native women like myself, who are falling through the cracks, and who no one seems to be listening to. I find it quite a shame that I should have to go through this process to get basic rights met.

Thank you.

The Chairman: I assume this completes the presentation. Thank you very much. It was very interesting, and addressed the issue on the table, which is, believe me, a treat. This is our fourth day, and we have been at it for over 10 hours today. You are far from being boring, I can tell you that. It was an excellent presentation. It brought back my confidence in the consultation process, so I really appreciate the comments that you made.

I will open up to questions from members now, starting with Mr. Murphy.

Mr. John Murphy (Annapolis Valley - Hants, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you very much for a well-done presentation.

I, like you, am concerned about your ability as off-reserve to participate in the workings and issues that concern the reserve and the people both off and on.

I'm not sure this legislation impedes the ability for off-reserve people to vote on reserve. I think the impediment is the band councils themselves. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I would ask your advice and for any ways or means you might see, for instance, on your own band getting a vote, and technically how we might make any changes in this proposed legislation. Thank you.

Ms Prince: Would you like to comment on that?

Mr. Long: Mr. Murphy, thank you for your question. We don't sit here with a panacea for you. We'll try to answer your question specifically...that we were trying to be specific for a change.

In Canada, the Canada Elections Act sets out who can vote in this country. We accept parliament's will in that way. I suppose the real problem is some chiefs and councils in the Indian world do not want you to interfere, they're saying ``Self-government's our deal, and you get out of our way.'' So there must be some reticence to entertain any thought in this area.

To allow Indians to be disenfranchised from their own governments, when you are working toward that end, and when you know, and you can be assured, and we could certainly document it, that there are many, many examples of abuse; I'm not going to catalogue them... But a simple statement, maybe a definition, that the word ``elector'' means on- and off-reserve members of a first nation would be the simple...

As regards the chiefs, let's take the two contrary arguments. If the chiefs said you can't define ``elector'' - why would they say that if they going to let the off-reserve vote anyway? What would be their motivation? What would be their thinking process?

.1925

In the Batchewana case the judge found it hard to understand why the off-reserve weren't allowed to vote by chief and council. He concluded, and I quote him, that it was a mystery to him but it was nevertheless true, and he had to do something. We would respectfully say that a definition section could be added: ``elector'' means on- and off- members of first nations. That would be one way.

But to leave it up to the good nature of 670 chiefs and 5,000 or 6,000 councillors, given what we know as a fact, leaves open a mischief, and I think Parliament has some responsibility to be as clear as possible. You're not telling people who to vote for, you're just saying who can vote, which is a different thing.

Thank you.

Mr. John Murphy: Thank you.

The Chairman: Any other questions or comments? Mr. Finlay.

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

Mr. Long, I thank you for your specific suggestions. However, I wrote one down that I think is incorrect. You suggested that merely a band council resolution was required, and it could be simply sent around and signed by the councillors, and you suggested that a band should hold a meeting to opt in. Well, in the bill I have in front of me, it suggests under proposed paragraph 2(3)(b) that

(b) a power conferred on the council of a band is deemed not to be exercised unless it is exercised

(i) pursuant to the consent of a majority of the councillors of the band who are present at a duly convened meeting of the council...

My understanding is that the band council, having done that, could then make use of those provisions in this proposed Indian Act Optional Modification Act that require only a band council resolution. However, there are six modifications in Bill C-79 that require not only a band resolution but require the consent of a majority of the band members. I can't tell you which ones those are, but I read six of them in the bill, so I just wanted to correct that impression.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Did you wish to respond to that?

Mr. Long: I'd like to, if I could.

The Chairman: Please do.

Mr. Long: Okay. Mr. Finlay is quite correct in one sense that there are provisions throughout the bill for band meetings. But if you recall, I specifically related subclause 5(1) with subparagraph 6(2)(b)(ii), and I focused on the word ``resolution''. If you read 5(1) and 6(2)(b)(ii), the meaning is simple and clear.

Subclause 5(1) says ``On receipt of a resolution...'' - all it requires is a resolution by the council of a band - ``the Minister shall,'' - not may - ``by order, add the name of the band to the schedule.'' And after that, ``(2) The Minister may not delete the name''.

So the trigger document - and I respect your analysis, sir, and if I'm wrong, I'm wrong - but the way I read it in simple English, it says is a resolution.

Then if I turn to 6(2)(b)(ii), not subparagraph (i) that mentions the band, but subparagraph (ii): or ``by a written resolution assented to in writing by all members of the council of the band''.

With respect, if you read the two together, a band council resolution bringing the band into this regime could be prepared, sent around to everybody's house, signed, sent into the Minister, and he would have no choice. If you read the two together, which I was trying to do, I think it opens up that possibility, and frankly, sir, with my experience, it's a certainty that in some bands this is the way it would be done.

.1930

Mr. John Finlay: Mr. Long, I'm not lawyer, and I can read what you have read. Maybe that needs some sort of explanation, because proposed subparagraphs 2(3)(b)(i) and 2(3)(b)(ii) do not have the same wording as the Indian Act itself.

I'm suggesting that what you say about this modification act will apply after the power conferred on the council has been exercised in the appropriate way under paragraph 2(3)(b) of the Indian Act, which is what governs the work of the bands at the present time.

I certainly will look into it further, but that's what I'm reading here.

Mr. Long: I suppose that's why Henry II said we should kill all the lawyers.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. John Finlay: It may well be.

The Chairman: Well, the point has been made. It hasn't been cleared up, but it has been made, and I'm convinced the committee will want a legal interpretation from our legal counsel on this issue.

Our legal counsel has heard the request, and before we engage in the clause-by-clause deliberation, we will receive from our legal counsel an opinion on both your positions.

Mr. Long: Thank you, sir.

The Chairman: Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Bachand.

Mr. Claude Bachand: I would like to respond to the issue raised by Ms Prince and especially Ms Valerie Arcand, who, by the way, has a very beautiful French name. Surely your name denotes Quebec ancestry.

I would like to talk a bit about the terms "reserve" and "off reserve", because I know these people are treated differently. You are raising the whole issue of Aboriginal citizenship. These are things that are discussed on a regular basis, and I have just learned that the provisions of section 77 have allegedly been over-turned and that the matter is being appealed to the Supreme Court. Hearings have not yet taken place, but the Supreme Court of Canada will be rendering a decision on the matter.

The issue that you have raised is not an easy one and I know that it applies to the entire Canadian territory. As soon as people move out of the reserve, they no longer have the same rights. Personally, and this is where I would like your comments perhaps, I do not think that it is by amending the Indian Act that we will resolve this problem.

I think that the matter of citizenship, as to who may vote and who may obtain services from the community, is settled by way of agreements on self-government and on land claims. That is how fundamental issue is settled. I think that it is not through a change to the Indian Act.

Could you comment what I have said and perhaps tell me whether you are in agreement with me or not?

[English]

Ms Arcand: First of all, yes, it is true that I was originally... Well, I do have a little bit of French, but not that much.

I was born in a log cabin on a reserve. I left there when I was 13 and I've been a city slicker since, off reserve. I've never had the chance or the opportunity to vote on a reserve and elect a representative who might support me, to make things a little easier for me and my family.

For me and people like me who are off reserve, there is no such thing as receiving anything. I don't have access to a house, education, or health care. I get the runaround most of the time. People aren't out there with open arms saying ``Here's a solution for you. This is where you can get some equality.''

.1935

I understand that voting is a privilege, and I've been denied that by Stanley Arcand and members of the council. They say I have to be a resident there for six months. I can't understand how I can be a resident there for six months in order to vote, when there is no place for me to live.

They're opposed to accepting Bill C-31s back. It says in the Constitution of 1985 that I was a registered band member, so here I am in this paper, but that's all I have - my name on a piece of paper, a number. I don't have anything else to show for it, other than sitting here telling my story.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

I mentioned that we would be getting an opinion from our legal counsel before undertaking our deliberations. Our legal counsel is prepared to give us an opinion now in reference to your statements and Mr. Finlay's positions on clauses 5 and 6. I invite our legal counsel to clarify.

Ms Mary Hurley (Committee Researcher): The question arises as a result of both the current version of paragraph 2(3)(b) as it reads in the Indian Act at present and as paragraph 2(3)(b) is going to read after the bill is enacted, if that should occur.

Under the provisions of paragraph 2(3)(b) as it currently exists, a BCR, or a band council resolution, in order to be enacted, must be passed at a duly convened meeting. Those are the terms of the act as it stands.

After a band council has, by majority vote, decided to opt into the bill, should that arise, it is only at that time that the provision for the band council resolution, passed by a unanimous vote, in writing, of the band councillors, would become a part of the Indian Act for those bands that choose to opt in. In other words, the written resolution adopted by a unanimous vote is not a part of the Indian Act for opting-in bands until the bill is enacted.

I should add, however, that because subclause 6(2) of the bill is one of the provisions that, according to the department's documentation, is going to be formalizing existing practice to a degree, to a certain degree the question is also one of theory and practice.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

You seem to want to react to that. I will allow you to do that.

Mr. Long: No, sir. I would not have the temerity to react to able counsel.

Just to clarify one thing, assuming that she's right - and of course lawyers are always right - may I ask her this? Is it clear to her that under the existing act, a simple majority of a band council - not a band meeting, but a band council - can bring this band into the act?

I'm not talking of my earlier question. I'm talking about the situation where, say, you have a council of 12 people - a chief and 11 councillors - and seven of them sign a BCR in a duly called meeting. Say five of them are violently opposed and the band is violently opposed, but they do that, and you receive the BCR. Would that be a clear trigger to bring the band into this regime?

Ms Hurley: Under the terms of the bill, yes, it's my opinion that it would. Of course the band council would then have to live with the consequences from the band.

Mr. Long: It would open up the possibility, without a band meeting, that a very small number of Indians in a band could bring us into the regime, which, according to your earlier opinion, would then mean they could go through the practice of no meetings and BCRs. So in a sense the band meeting is out of the picture. At the very best, it's a duly called band meeting with a majority - am I right? - that would trigger opting in.

.1940

Ms Hurley: I'm not sure to what degree the dialogue should be taking place between you and me. My understanding of the terms of the bill are that a band council resolution by majority at a duly convened meeting could result in a band's being opted in or scheduled.

The Chairman: I'll intervene at this point. I think it's everyone's feeling that the last comments by our legal counsel are what is in this proposed legislation.

The members are very much aware of the concerns over that part of the changes, and this committee is in a position to amend if it wishes. But I think the committee has been made very clear of this situation, and if there should be no amendments to that effect, it would only be because of choice. The members are aware of the situation, and it would be up to one member to propose an amendment and the majority carrying it. So you can be assured that your point has been made very clear, and it has been made clear on a number of occasions.

That concludes our time for this presentation. I want to thank you very much for a very interesting and researched presentation. It was refreshing, after a long day especially, to engage in the debate already. Thank you very much.

Ms Prince: I would like to thank you for taking the time to listen to us. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you.

I will suspend the public hearings either until 8:40 p.m., or before, if our representative from the Montana Tribal Administration appears.

.1942

.2043

The Chairman: We'll resume our hearings.

From the Montana Tribal Administration, Mr. Leo Cattleman. Mr. Cattleman, we have been told that you were called to Red Deer, that someone was in the hospital. I hope everything's okay.

Mr. Leo Cattleman (Montana Tribal Administration): Everything's all right. My daughter had a little girl.

The Chairman: That's wonderful. Good news. Congratulations. Is that your first grandchild?

Mr. Cattleman: No, it's my fifteenth.

The Chairman: Fifteenth? You're doing better than I am. I only have one.

Thank you very much for being with us. We really appreciate on a special day like today that you would take time to assist us in addressing modifications to Bill C-79, an act to permit certain modifications in the application of the Indian Act to bands that desire them.

Mr. Cattleman, my name is Ray Bonin, and I'm chairman of the committee. I have with me, from the Bloc Québécois, Claude Bachand, and from the Liberal Party, Elijah Harper, Charles Hubbard, and John Murphy. I think Mr. Finlay will be back in a few minutes.

Mr. Cattleman, we have 40 minutes together. Those minutes belong to you. You may use them in any way you wish. We would appreciate it if you would allow some time for members to ask questions after. That being said, please proceed.

.2045

Mr. Cattleman: Today, Tuesday, March 18, 1997, I have a presentation of the Montana and Louis Bull tribes to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development on the proposed Indian Act Optional Modification Act.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to present our views. On behalf of our people of the Montana and Louis Bull tribes, we wish to serve notice that we reject Bill C-79. This bill is not about our treaty, our special relationship with the crown, nor about the entrenchment of tribal government, nor is it about trying to improve the lives of our people. It is about Canada trying to sidestep the real issues that concern us. It is about Canada not listening to us. It is about Canada ignoring what was agreed upon in the treaties. It is about breaching their trust to us and it is about Canada proceeding to do what it thinks is best for us without our consent.

This is not new for us. As recently as 1982, Canada patriated the Constitution from Britain despite the concerted opposition of all tribes in Canada. It has now decided that it is best for us that the Department of Indian Affairs is dismantled, even if we do not feel we are ready to take over programs and services. We are told that it is too bad. The administration of these programs and services will be given to some third party.

A few months ago, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples tabled their report. Amazingly, all of the recommendations of the commission have been ignored. In fact, we are told that Bill C-79 is not in response to the commission. We would like to know why did the federal government set up the royal commission to consult with Indian people across Canada when the recommendations were going to be ignored anyway.

Why is the minister spending so much time and money on modifying an act that is an instrument of oppression? It is our opinion that we should get on with more important matters. We have for years lobbied for a meaningful process to try to resolve our differences with Canada. We have lobbied for a bilateral process between tribes in Canada, since a process would require that we work cooperatively to do what is best for Indian people. In addition, the decisions reached would be informed and carefully considered ones.

In a bilateral process, matters of substance would be discussed and significant differences could be resolved, but it would require commitment from all parties. It is evident that Canada is not prepared to make this commitment. Rather than acting on the recommendations of the royal commission and working with us on the implementation, Canada has once again chosen the easy way out. It will instead pass an act to amend another act, an act that has been completely discredited and has earned the scorn of scholars, courts, tribunals and the international community.

Do not continue on this path. Do something instead that is going to make a positive and lasting change for Indian people.

We therefore encourage and urge the members of the standing committee to consider the following. We do not need this proposed legislation. Canada should not be allowed to sidestep the real issues that affect us on our reserves.

.2050

Issues that need to be addressed in this process include recognition and entrenchment of tribal government, the resolving of land claims, and the permanence of the trust responsibilities of the crown toward the tribes.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much for your presentation.

We will proceed to questions from members.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand from the Bloc Québécois.

Mr. Claude Bachand: Mr. Cattleman, I would like to congratulate you on your presentation this evening, given the circumstances. Congratulations on your new granddaughter, your 15th grandchild.

You seem to hold a position that the Assembly of First Nations also expressed, namely that the government, rather than putting its energies and its money into making changes, even if they are optional, to the old Indian Act, should rather try to settle the true issues. It should try to come to agreements on native self-government and on land claims which would provide the First Nations with a sufficient land base for them to become autonomous and finally break their ties of dependency upon the Indian Act.

Are you telling us to forget about the Indian Act and to move along to more important things?

[English]

Mr. Cattleman: I don't wish to make any comments at this time. What I'll do is fax additional comments on Bill C-79 or the Indian Act Optional Modification Act.

The Chairman: I would like to mention, if you will fax any documents to us, you will have to assure that it's done and it's received by us by tomorrow evening, because our clause-by-clause starts on Thursday morning. So we would ask that you do it as soon as possible.

Mr. Cattleman: I'll fax in the information first thing in the morning.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Are there any other comments or questions from members?

There being none, I want to thank you very much, Mr. Cattleman, for an excellent presentation, and we look forward to receiving your written documents. We wish you the best with your new grand-daughter and to your daughter also.

Mr. Cattleman: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you.

.2053

.2058

The Chairman: We'll resume our hearings on Bill C-79, an act to permit modifications in the application of the Indian Act to bands that desire them.

We welcome, from the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada Committee for Church and Society, Alberta and the Territories, the chair, Carl Rausch. I see that you have a colleague with you. Could you give us the name, please, and the position on the committee?

Mr. Carl Rausch (Chair, Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada Committee for Church and Society, Alberta and the Territories): Good evening.

The Chairman: Good evening. What is the name of your colleague, Mr. Rausch?

The Reverend Faith Grace (Intercity Pastoral Ministry, Edmonton): I'm Pastor Faith Grace with the Intercity Pastoral Ministry in Edmonton.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

My name is Ray Bonin. I'm chair of the committee. I have with me, from the Bloc Québécois, Mr. Claude Bachand, and from the Liberal Party, Mr. Elijah Harper, Mr. John Finlay, Mr. Charles Hubbard, and Mr. John Murphy.

.2100

We have 40 minutes together. You may use those minutes in any way you wish, but we would appreciate it if you would allow some time for members to ask questions afterwards.

Having said that, I would ask you to proceed, please.

Rev. Grace: I just want to add that I'm a member of the church and society committee of the Synod of Alberta and Territories for our church. Carl is the chairperson.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Rausch: Just for the information of the other people in the room, the Lutheran Church in Canada has approximately 200,000 members, and we're divided into what are called synods.

So in our area, in our synod, which comprises Alberta, and the territories - with the Yukon - we have about 150 congregations and about 45,000 to 50,000 members. It's a fairly mainstream church.

So both Faith and I are elected to the committee. It's a standing committee, and while we're speaking we're not just giving individual opinions; we're reflecting... I'll talk about that later in a bit more detail, and also about where our church as an organization is coming from.

The Chairman: Could you clarify for us if you have any churches or missions on reserves?

Mr. Rausch: The Lutheran Church does not have any congregations on reserve lands. There are some things that look like congregational ministries in some of the cities, but they are not nearly as actively involved as the other mainstream churches, the Catholic, Anglican, United and Presbyterian churches. We don't have the same presence on the lands.

The Chairman: I have a final question: could you clarify for us the relationship between your group and the effects of Bill C-79.

Mr. Rausch: One of the relationships is that the national Evangelical Lutheran Church is a member of a number of coalitions, and has been so for a number of years. One of those coalitions is the Aboriginal Rights Coalition. In this particular case, it is a partnership of 11 national churches, and the Lutherans are part of that. Things relating to treaty, non-treaty and aboriginal issues are of concern to the Aboriginal Rights Coalition, and we are active members in that coalition.

The Chairman: I thought that was my final question, but it brings on another one. Has the Aboriginal Rights Coalition been created as a result of a request from aboriginals, or is it a proactive concern that you undertake as a church community?

Mr. Rausch: The Aboriginal Rights Coalition originally was called Project North back in the days of the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline, and the hearings on that, chaired by Justice Berger. Some of the mainstream churches got together then at the request of some of the people from the north. Then as things settled north of 60 - or at least there was some clarity - for the rest of Canada there was a shift from Project North to the Aboriginal Rights Coalition.

It's a joint... There are three parties to it. It's like a pyramid. There are the 11 national churches, first nations and aboriginal groups, and also some who run community or particular regional activities. These are the three parties that are partners to this.

The Chairman: Thank you very much. That helps us get a better understanding, and also helps us get to know you better.

Now I won't interrupt any longer. I will ask you to proceed with your presentation.

Mr. Rausch: Okay, thank you. Let me just pick up on where we were finishing as part of the introduction. Something else has also happened.

Besides our involvement with the Aboriginal Rights Coalition, we in the Lutheran Church were partners with some of the other churches. As far back as the early 80s, and, in particular, in 1986 there was a covenant signed by some of the national bishops dealing with an approach to first nations issues.

This covenant was seeking partnership and doing things in a new and healthier manner, particularly in this synod, in this part of the country, the Alberta and territories synod, where Faith and I are from.

.2105

For a number of years we have been meeting in convention as a synod every two years. This is what I can recollect, and we're not trying to be precise here; at least, that's not our intention. A couple of times motions were passed by the delegates who were elected at the national convention. These motions reaffirmed this synod's support of the inherent right of self-determination or self-government for aboriginal and treaty people.

As a church we have an approach, although part of our approach is to work, as much as possible, in partnership with aboriginal and first nations. We are aware of the difficulty some of the first nations are having, and they're not attending these hearings.

We have discussed this issue within our own church, in particular with the bishop of this synod. But in the past several days, since we were aware of this videoconference, we have also talked with some of the first nations leaders.

This is what the first nations leaders have said essentially: we have our approach. You are who you are, we value you as white or European partners, and you will say what you wish to say.

Part of what we are saying is that we are sensitive to where many of the first nations are coming from. We would like to inform both the committee and the process here that as a church organization of relatively middle-class people, we are aware of, and concerned about, some of what is happening, in particular with respect to Bill C-79. The concerns could probably be best summarized in just a couple of key points, and then Faith will talk with you for a bit.

One of the concerns we have is about Bill C-79, in particular, but it has happened before: the speed of this process itself. The fact that there is very limited time for hearings and that the hearings are virtually inaccessible because of the speed at which everything is occurring, makes it very difficult, even for well-connected and informed first nations leadership or others who are concerned about what's going on, to know that there is an opportunity to speak, if they wish to speak. So there is a concern about the speed of this process.

We don't believe it's as simple as the fact that there may be an election coming. There may be other things, but that's speculation, and could border on cynicism. But we are concerned about the speed of this process.

One of the other concerns we have is that what's going on is not very transparent. There was talk about amendments to the Indian Act. There has been talk for decades. There was a special gathering in Winnipeg in September last year, where many of the first nations leaders expressed concern about what was happening, and requested that brakes be put on the process.

Instead, the process continued. And just before Christmas and the Christmas break, when many people are not as available to follow up on this, the amendments, the optional amendments to the Indian Act, were introduced for Bill C-79. They just sort of arrived, in many senses, and arrived over the Christmas break. So once again the issue of transparency is a concern.

The other concern we have in particular here is for Alberta and the territories, where our synod is located. We are not sure - and have not had time to talk it through with some of our connections and people we know up north - of the effect this particular bill would have if it would be cleared by both the House of Commons and the Senate, and become law.

We don't know the effect on Nunavut and the territories in the north. It certainly would not have as blank a page for them to work on as they move towards their future identities as two separate territories. We believe there wouldn't be flexibility if the act got through.

.2110

The Chairman: The modifications would affect the Indians in the north, but not the Nunavut.

Mr. Rausch: So you are saying there would be no effect on the Innu?

The Chairman: The Innu are Indians, and it would affect them if they opted in.

Another clarification I'd like to offer is that there's no question of amendments to the Indian Act; that is not what we are doing. They are modifications in the application of the Indian Act. There are no amendments to the Indian Act.

Mr. Rausch: Well, when we have read Bill C-79... In a little bit I'll come to some of the particular sections that could be discussed as applications.

But really what we're looking at is what we believe the effect to be, and what the process has been to this point. Whether it's the effect of the application rather than an amendment, it still has a consequence. So I'll try to use the word ``consequences'' in reference to these changes instead. Thank you for that.

My final concern after the question and the lack of clarity concerning Nunavut in the north has to do with the fact that for a very long time many first nations people have frequently requested that when they work on changes to the way they govern themselves or the way they will run their lives, they would like to do that in a spirit of dialogue and joint work together.

I'm sure you've heard from many places the concern they have that this has not been a joint process. Yet some first nations have raised this or that point, and they're reflected in parts of Bill C-79. However, there hasn't been a thoughtful process where first nations people, at their own speed, have been participating in the build-up to changes to how they're governed, or to how they govern themselves.

This whole idea of working together and having the other person... For example, in a partnership, if you have a law firm, a marriage, or whatever, you have to see people working together, and a dialogue between equal partners. From our observations and analyses of what's going on, we don't see that joint work together.

One of the consequences is that this sends a very clear message - it's implicit, but it sends a very clear message - to first nations that they may not know what path to take, and therefore we'll help them by laying out the direction, and clearing the ground for the path. That what seems to be happening with Bill C-79. It is not a joint work, and it is not honouring first nations peoples' ability to lay out their own path.

Faith has a particular way of coming at this part of it, so I'll ask Pastor Faith Grace if she would pick up here.

Rev. Grace: Thank you. I'm a minister who works with an inner-city congregation, most of whom are native people - first nations aboriginal people, and some Métis.

I just want to express something of our attitude as a church, and as church people, to this whole process of dealing with the aboriginal people among us. I want to recognize the aboriginal peoples of Canada not as problems, but as great natural sources of wisdom and healing, so that we will value their presence among us, and begin, as a nation, to ask for their contributions, and benefit from their knowledge and experience.

So the way I come at this is to tell some stories of people whom I know and deal with every day. Last summer I spent a month in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. I visited an elderly lady in a village on Peel River, north of the Arctic Circle. She's 94 years old and almost blind, but her spirit is strong. Her ancestors have lived on that river bank for generations. Some of them were guides for the Northwest Mounted Police in the early years of this century.

The village is famous as the burial place of the lost patrol. The people still say that if they had taken a native guide, they would not have been lost. And even if they had been lost, they wouldn't have died, because the native people know how to survive in the wilderness.

.2115

Today, that knowledge of the land has become an industry in places like Fort McPherson. The two largest local businesses are tour guiding up the Peel and Arctic Red rivers and a canvas factory, which produces tents and tepees and backpacks. Fort McPherson is still a strong place of aboriginal knowledge and experience.

One evening last week I sat for several hours visiting with a young aboriginal woman in a resource centre in Edmonton's inner city. She is a person who lives in poverty. Her story includes abuse and abandonment, drugs and prostitution, and violence and imprisonment. But in the present she lives with dignity and determination. Her priorities or her path, as she describes it, are to raise her children well and to follow her native spirituality. We talked about the provincial election. I asked her if she intended to vote. She said no. I asked why, and she said ``It's not part of my path. What happens in the election makes no difference to the path I walk.''

I believe she's right. The provincial government is irrelevant to her and to thousands of other aboriginal people. Would it be worth while to ask these people what kind of leadership would make a difference to the paths they walk?

A couple of months ago I met an aboriginal woman who told me she was about to begin a training course in computer skills. She has a university degree in psychology, but she's unable to get work in her field. She has five children, all teenagers, and she's tired of the struggle to provide even basic needs for them. She is afraid the experience of deprivation will make her kids turn to crime. My husband is a hunter, and I offered her some moose meat to help out with feeding her hungry kids. She didn't come to pick it up. I believe it was because of pride. How long will pride last when an intelligent, educated, hardworking woman can't get work? And yet I admire her for it. She knows how to endure. But when hardship seems inflicted by a senseless system, despair may set in.

Why doesn't our system reward learning and hard work and endurance?

There are some things that make sense. My friend, who does not choose to vote, tells of her experience in the penitentiary in Prince Albert, Saskatchewan. It was a brutal place and she was a tough prisoner, but two nuns visited her every week. She behaved badly and they still visited her every week. She has rebuilt her life. She said that evening, ``I want to call them the next time I'm in Prince Albert. I would like them to know I'm doing better.'' She is grateful. Gratitude is a rare attitude in our time and place.

There's a story about a native woman called Brenda, who was a notorious criminal. By the only stroke of good luck in her whole life, she ended up in the new prison for women in Maple Creek, Saskatchewan, a prison built around the concepts of community and healing. This woman was one of the worst examples of what can happen to aboriginal women in our system. She is now rebuilding her life and that of her daughter. Brenda's mother died at the age of 44 in the prison system. Brenda said except for her healing experience in the Maple Creek prison, she would have followed her mother's footsteps in death. ``I don't want to die the way I would have died'', she said, ``I want to have a good death.'' A good death and a good life too, we hope. Is that too much for a native woman to ask for?

Last November, a man who lived on the street in Edmonton suffered severe injuries when he passed out on the sidewalk. Somebody poured glue on his head and neck and lit it on fire. He spent some weeks in the burn unit at the university hospital receiving skin grafts. I went to visit him. He was clean and well fed and had a warm bed to sleep in. He shared his hospital meals with his homeless friends when they came to visit him. He doesn't forget that I came to visit him. He often speaks about it to me.

Another man who spent the winter in jail wrote letters and drew pictures as gifts for me.

Somehow these people have not been brutalized by the system. Their spirits remain gentle in spite of harsh treatment and deprivation. What do they know that we don't know? What could they tell us if we had the grace to ask?

This past Sunday I was approached by a young aboriginal woman who told me of the death of her cousin, who had taken her life by hanging herself. Would I say a prayer for the spirit of the dead woman? Please say a prayer right now, she said. I looked around and there were three other people standing with us. Two of the men said they were brothers of the woman speaking to me and another was a friend. They were all mourning the dead woman. Spontaneously we joined hands and prayed. They were grateful; I was moved, moved by the awareness of spiritual riches among my aboriginal brothers and sisters. They were dirty, hungry, and grieving, and yet they gathered to comfort each other and to include me.

.2120

I pray that our leaders in this country might have the grace to honour their strength. This attitude for me demands from our government a radical, a daring approach toward aboriginal people. I would like to see us lead the world in a generous approach to our aboriginal people.

Thank you.

Mr. Rausch: There are some specific things we wish to say, but what we wanted to do was to present the attitude behind what we believe to be important in terms of valuing first nations people, working with them not according to our deadlines, and our timelines and our priorities, especially when they fairly consistently - not unanimously, that's impossible - asked for this bill in particular not even to appear and it did.

So why doesn't it go away? We would suggest that Bill C-79 be withdrawn. This is a very simple solution that is pretty doubtful to occur, but that is what we believe would be best. If that doesn't happen, we would encourage the Senate to take the time and have the thoughtfulness and openness and look for the gifts that are there within the first nations communities, not only the reserves but among all the members who are first nations members Faith was talking about in those stories.

I would like to highlight that the approach we've had is really quite simple. As a church among the 150 congregations... And like I said, every two years we do meet and these have been discussed and then passed as resolutions among elected delegates. That really has to do with the whole idea of the inherent right to self-determination or self-government, which covers all the members of a particular first nation. It's not tied to geography or residency, which is the way federal and provincial governments like to approach things, and what's implicit in many of the sections of Bill C-79 here.

We believe that the right to self-determination and self-government is not at all reflected in the section in particular that's under ``Capacity'', proposed section 16.1, which essentially sets up a band - which is an outmoded term - it sets up a band to have the capacity, and subject to the Indian Act, to have the rights and powers and privileges of a natural person. It sounds like a corporation to me, even if it's a non-profit corporation.

If first nations have the inherent right to self-government, it's illogical that they become simply corporations or non-profit corporations or that they're perceived to be the same as the City of Edmonton here or the City of Toronto, that they are simply corporations.

The third order of government... Aboriginal first nations people are an order of government. They are neither a corporation or equivalent of the municipal level of government. They are an order of government. We very strongly feel about proposed section 16.1 that this is a step that is damaging and dangerous and is also inconsistent with the idea of the inherent right to self-determination or self-government.

Even within the earlier section of Bill C-79, it does talk about the section 35, an affirmation and recognition of the rights in section 35 of the Constitution Act. If you're affirming the existing treaty and aboriginal rights that are in the Constitution, then it's illogical to say that you can be simply the same as a corporation.

.2125

The only other little point we noticed... And again we're not trying to pretend we're experts on many of the details in this thing, but are reflecting an approach of tens of thousands of typical Albertans. The difficulty we have is in clause 42 of this act, where there's a comment that the minister can enter into agreements in regard to the education of Indian children.

Further down the list, after saying that the minister can enter into agreements with the council, with the government of a province, with the commissioner for the Yukon or for the Northwest Territories - I don't know about Nunavut - it says that the minister can also enter into agreements with public or separate school boards or regional authorities, which are creations of the provincial government, as if they're as meaningful as the other governments that were listed earlier. What is quite surprising to us is to see that the minister can enter into agreements with religious or charitable organizations.

Although we as a Lutheran Church were not involved in some of the terrible things that happened in residential schools, we don't know how to read this. There's nothing here about a double bilateral process. It just says the minister may enter into an agreement. It doesn't imply or say that the minister will do this only upon the advice or the wishes of a particular first nation. So we are concerned about that part also.

We have some thoughts for the future, but it's certainly getting late enough. It's very late in the day for you in particular - two hours later, it's 9:30 p.m. now. So thank you very much for your time. We would certainly be willing to discuss this.

The Chairman: Thank you for your presentation.

I just want to clear up your concern over entering into agreements with territories, provinces, public or separate school boards. That is in the act presently. It's not an addition to the act; it's already in there. I understand from your concern that you would prefer it not be there, but it's not a new addition.

Mr. Rausch: Then I would wonder why it's down there as section 42 talking about what's there. But the concern was more related to, by implication, and not saying there needs to be a bilateral process even, by saying the minister can enter into agreements with parts (d) and (e), either the local school boards or the religious or charitable organizations. The ability to enter into an agreement with them without a bilateral condition or a tripartite agreement implies that the first nation is just like some other school board or local authority, or some other non-profit corporation. That's the concern about that part. It does fit back to proposed section 16.1.

The Chairman: Thank you.

We have 15 minutes left. We'll offer members any questions or comments. Mr. Finlay.

Mr. John Finlay: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Pastor Faith and Carl Rausch for their presentation.

It seems we've come to a point where I really want to say something. Mr. Rausch, you talked about the speed of this process making it difficult and you talked about a lack of transparency. I appreciate your problem. If you're going to take the view of the people who have advised you about this, then you are going to come up with the wrong answer. There used to be a childhood game we played called truth or consequences. You talked about consequences, so I want to talk a little bit about truth and about just what has gone on with this bill.

I'll try to be brief, because other members may have something to say.

On November 14, 1994, Minister Irwin wrote to Ovide Mercredi, Grand Chief of the AFN, with respect to the reform of the Indian Act, and the AFN did not respond. On February 28, 1995, the minister wrote to Mr. Mercredi to reiterate his request for the views of the AFN. There was no response.

The minister then raised the idea publicly at the Alberta chiefs' summit in March 1995, two years ago. On April 4, 1995, the minister wrote to all chiefs, councillors and first nations organizations in the country, asking them to provide him with specific proposals for amendments to the Indian Act. The proposals were not to affect aboriginal treaty rights or alter the federal government's fundamental fiduciary relationship with first nations. Nor were they to involve contentious matters such as taxation, Indian status and band memberships, or the impact on the crown's duty for the protection of reserve land.

.2130

On May 8, 1995, the minister met with Mr. Mercredi, seeking to form a working group with the AFN to work with DIAND officials on reviewing the proposed amendments. Mr. Rausch, I must say that the amendments that were proposed had been proposed over the previous thirty years by any number of standing committees, by the Penner report, and by the chiefs of bands who were struggling to lead their people under the Indian Act, which we all know is paternalistic and does not provide the aboriginal people with freedom of action in many respects.

This even extends to not being able to sell their own cow on a prairie reserve without the minister's approval. The minister doesn't do that any more; he won't do it. He thinks it's degrading and beneath aboriginals to suggest to them that he will decide whether they can sell their cow or not.

All regional offices contacted each first nation to ensure they had received a copy of the minister's letter of April 4. A toll-free number was installed at the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development headquarters. The number was advertised in the aboriginal media.

Personnel at DIAND headquarters answered most of the inquiries over the phone, while in some cases, correspondence was sent. As of July 1, 61 responses, representing 214 first nations, had been received. Over three-quarters of the responses were supportive of incremental reforms to the act. Fewer than 10% were opposed. The rest requested more time.

On September 1, 1995, the minister wrote to Mr. Mercredi to reiterate the offer to work with AFN on the amendment project. Again, the AFN did not respond.

The same month, a list of suggested changes received from first nations, plus others that had arisen over the years that had been repeatedly suggested to all departmental officials in the course of day to day business, was sent by the minister to all chiefs and councillors in first nations organizations. Regional officials also followed up consultation directly with first nations.

Additional suggestions and comments were received, and further analysis was done. On March 7, the deputy minister met with Mr. Mercredi to discuss the participation of the AFN in the amendment project. It was agreed that a cooperative process would be established a year ago.

On April 22, the deputy minister wrote Mr. Mercredi seeking a meeting in order to develop a mutual plan for the cooperative process. The AFN indicated they had hired a lawyer to review the amendment package.

In the meeting of April 26, between the minister, deputy minister and Mr. Mercredi, the AFN decided that the forum for the cooperative process that was to be established would be a chief's committee, and so on. No committee was set up by the time of the July annual general assembly of the AFN.

As a result, the minister mailed a revised list of proposed amendments to first nations and their organizations, with a third letter on June 4, 1996.

A government official was invited to make a presentation on the Indian Act amendments to the AFN's annual general assembly. Although he was ready and willing, the presentation did not take place. The minister did appear, however, and spoke to the assembly on a range of issues including the proposed changes.

On July 10, 1996, the AFN passed a resolution rejecting the proposed amendments and the process used for consultation with first nations.

On September 17, 1996, the minister wrote again to all chiefs of native organizations to provide them with the plain-language version of the proposed changes. Keeping with the commitment to avoid any fundamental impact on the broader fiduciary relationship between the Crown and first nations, the proposals focused on streamlining procedures, increasing local control, repealing unused sections, and fostering reserve economic development. Those suggestions for reform that the aboriginals found offensive were removed.

On September 20, the minister wrote Mr. Mercredi accepting an invitation to meet and discuss the amendments in the spirit of achieving consensus at the AFN's special chief's assembly in Winnipeg. The minister made a complete presentation, and so on.

The decision to make the legislation optional was made in the late fall of 1996 as a result of requests from some first nations to not to make mandatory universal changes to the Indian Act. The optional approach allows individual first nations to make their own choices.

The bill was introduced to the House on December 12, after which copies were sent to all first nations on December 17.

.2135

The AFN was provided with copies of all the correspondence received from first nations through this process, but with all the information that could have served to identify the particular first nations involved removed so as to honour the minister's undertaking of confidentiality regarding this process.

Since 1987, approximately $15 million has been spent by the government of this country for the analysis of the current act and any proposed changes. When you say it's not transparent, I would quarrel with you. When you say the pace has been too rapid, I would quarrel with you. I think you should know that.

Mr. Rausch: Much of what was read from that briefing note, or whatever that was there, was not news to me. I was trying to give an overview of things. I recognize what's said there.

I would like to highlight a very important point, though, and that is that as some of you hopefully are aware, the AFN is not every first nation. There have been difficulties within the AFN in terms of the involvement of some of the first nations, especially the prairie first nations and especially in Alberta. I believe you would be aware of that. The AFN does not necessarily include some of the first nations within Treaty 7 in particular, but even Treaties 6 and 8 out here. That's the one point; AFN and first nations are not necessarily synonymous and interchangeable terms.

A point that I think is more telling than that concerns the experiences of the churches and their involvement with first nations people since the days of the very early missionaries. Remember, we are coming from a Christian Lutheran perspective.

If you look at what happened within the churches, what we did as churches - and though Lutherans didn't, I'm sure we would have, given the opportunity - is we established residential schools in cooperation with the government of the day, believing that was the best course of action. We are now at the point where some churches are having to be very aware of not only the possibility but the reality of lawsuits and things that have happened within those residential schools which were established with the best of intentions.

The connection I'm trying to make here is that what the churches are doing, slowly and in a very stumbling manner, is trying to listen better and see what path it is first nations people want to lead. The Sacred Assembly, which Elijah Harper was very involved with, in a sense was one of the first steps since the missionaries have arrived where the churches consciously and specifically waited for the step in the beginning of the path to be set by aboriginal leaders.

Just as the churches need to listen and have time, we believe the governments need to listen and have time and not get distracted simply by the politics of things. I certainly acknowledge your point, but I'm not sure about some of the changes that have consequences to the Indian Act. These were at the same time as the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples was just winding down, and I'm not sure that the timing makes sense at all to have this go ahead. I'll leave it at that, but I certainly take your point.

The Chairman: Thank you.

I will now go to Mr. Bachand.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand: Mr. Rausch, I would like to congratulate you on your presentation. For my part, I would like to reassure you. It's quite certain that Mr. Finlay may have some difficulties with the issue of consultation. We have letters which contradict somewhat the numbers provided by Mr. Finlay, even if I do realize that what he just told you is correct.

That is how the department proceeded. But now, we also have statistics and we are able to tell you that 85% of First Nations are against the bill, namely 550 communities out of 610. I was present at 15 of 16 presentations and, of the 15 that I heard, people were against the bill for several reasons, amongst others consultation. People were saying that they had not been consulted.

.2140

When we talk to Aboriginal people through a videoconference, that makes several of them very uncomfortable. To be seated at a table to talk is not the traditional way of doing things for them. A lot of people are uncomfortable in a videoconference situation and several of them have confirmed to us that mere letters do not meet the conditions for consultation or for sufficient consultation to bring any changes to the Indian Act.

Aboriginals have told us over the past few days that the solution, as far as they were concerned, was the modernization of their treaties. They need agreements on self-government with various levels of government. Within these agreements, we should agree with them on how to proceed in order to grant them self-government, so that they become masters in their own house.

That is what they told us. They told us not to change the Indian Act because it is an antiquated piece of legislation, even if there are some subtle elements in the bill which we are studying. They told us that the changes made will create a parallel Act to the Indian Act and that provisions of the old bill will no longer apply within the new one.

The road toward a solution is certainly not this one. If you hear warning bells that indicate that the consultation process is not a good one, in my opinion, these warnings are accurate.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Hubbard.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: I have just a few comments for Mr. Rausch and Ms Grace.

We use a lot of terms, and ``paternalism'' is one of them. It has a lot of different meanings, but basically, Mr. Chairman, every law that was ever made in this country is paternalistic. It's a law whereby society has decided that it has a better way of doing things than the individual who it's trying to make the laws for. So we have to be very careful of that term.

We also hear about rights and responsibilities. We hear about time. As Mr. Finlay mentioned, we have spent some time looking at the act. We've had the report of the aboriginal commission and we've tried to look at a number of things, but basically we as legislators somehow have to look at the problems in the immediate future.

I think Mr. Harper here has mentioned that we certainly don't see the Indian Act as the great solution, either past or present or maybe even in the immediate future, for what is needed in addressing the needs of our aboriginal people. But we have to make a start somewhere. We have to think in terms of rights.

You questioned one part of our amended act, which is similar to the former act, that talks about rights of people. Of course, along with rights also go responsibilities. They have to go hand in hand. We certainly see, as legislators listening to the presentations, that the rights of our native people should be equal to if not better than those of our other people in this great nation of ours. I think in terms of your church, you have to look at this concept of rights and you have to consider the fact that the rights of many people in the first nation communities and those first nations people living off reserves are not very great.

I would hope that when you give your submission tomorrow by fax or whatever, you consider this aspect of it, the fact that you don't jump from one place to another but rather you take one small step at a time. With this act, I think the minister is taking a step towards what the eventual solution might be. If we get a few steps taken, we go eventually towards a solution which maybe Mr. Erasmus and the former chief justice have written in terms of that report. We can't sit still and watch forever what has happened in the past. We have to move towards the future, and hopefully we can do something towards that regard.

I won't ask for a reply to that. I see Mr. Harper wants to make a few comments and I'll turn the meeting over to him.

The Chairman: Yes. Our time has elapsed, but we are fortunate to have on our committee Elijah Harper, who is an aboriginal leader and a person of wisdom and experience. Monsieur Bachand has agreed that we allow Mr. Harper some extra time to have the final words on our last presentation in the electronic part of our consultation.

Mr. Harper, you have the closing remarks.

.2145

Mr. Elijah Harper: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the committee members for allowing me to say a few words.

First of all, I'd like to thank you for your presentation, Pastor Grace and also Carl Rausch. I know the churches are in support of the aboriginal people; they try to be aware of the issues in respect to the aboriginal people. I'm aware of the committee you're involved in, and I'm also familiar with the coalition and Project North. I worked with the members of Project North as far back as 1975 to 1978. As a matter of fact, I was chief at that time working with some of the people. So it goes far back.

I just want to thank you for your presentation. I know you mentioned the Sacred Assembly. We try to reconcile many of our differences. I think part of the problem here is our perspective and the government's perspective of a dominant society. There are obviously some clashes, not only of views and philosophy and way of life, but also in terms of how we do business. Certainly the parliamentary procedures have confused a lot of the people and ordinary Canadians as well. I see that happening. I think we have to start working together.

I just want to commend you and thank you for your support. I count on you to continue to support us and to make our leaders, not only aboriginal leaders but provincial and federal and municipal leaders in our country, to be more sensitive and take into account our issues and the aboriginal people in Canada.

The Chairman: Thank you very much for your presentation and thank you to committee members for your hard work. We've been sitting for 13 hours today. As everyone can see, it's still a very active committee. I commend you and I'm honoured to be your chair. In spite of being criticized every 40 minutes for not consulting, I think the work that was done last week and this week and the 13 hours today is a good piece of work.

We will reconvene in this room at 9 a.m. Thursday as a full committee to go clause by clause. I think you have been advised of that.

Are there any closing remarks from any committee members?

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand: I would like to discuss whether it would be relevant to continue or not. Should I do that before the subcommittee, before the steering committee, or during a meeting of the full committee?

The Chairman: Relevant to continue with that?

Mr. Claude Bachand: Not to go into clause-by-clause study on Thursday. I would like to deal with that issue.

The Chairman: You will have to ask for a special meeting.

Mr. Claude Bachand: Of the Sub-committee on Agenda and Procedure?

The Chairman: It would be before the full committee.

Mr. Claude Bachand: Very well. Therefore, if that is what I want to do, I will speak to you about it and then we will begin a little bit earlier. Is that all right?

The Chairman: I'll have to do that tomorrow.

The meeting stands adjourned.

Return to Committee Home Page