EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Monday, March 10, 1997

.0905

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you very much for being here just on time. And I thank you for being here on short notice in Sudbury, the heart of the riding of Nickel Belt.

We are starting our consultations today with a videoconference, and we welcome Angela Neveau, from the Batchewana First Nation.

Angela, would you introduce your colleagues if they will be making the presentation with you? We would like them to name themselves so that we can identify them on the record. Everything you say will be on the record and will be considered in our deliberations of the Indian Act after we finish our consultations.

We have forty minutes for this presentation. You may take the time that you need and the balance will be used up by committee members who will be asking you questions. I invite you to introduce yourselves and then start immediately. Thank you.

Chief Angela Neveau (Batchewana First Nation): Good morning. I am chief of the Batchewana First Nation.

Ms Carol Madgiwan (Councillor, Batchewana First Nation): Good morning. I am councillor for the Batchewana First Nation.

Mr. Joe Thom Seyers (Representative, Batchewana First Nation): I am a Batchewana First Nation member and former self-government coordinator.

Chief Neveau: The band council passed a resolution on November 6, 1996, at a public general meeting. It reads:

Whereas the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has unilaterally designed and undertaken a process to amend the Indian Act; and,

Whereas the Minister's consultation process and methodology was not approved by First Nations and falls short of the standard of ``meaningful consultation''; and,

Whereas in the Minister's process to amend the Indian Act, the Minister has made no efforts to ensure that the amendments to the Indian Act do not affect or diminish Canada's fiduciary obligations to First Nations and Aboriginal Treaty Rights; and,

Whereas the Federal Government of Canada has chosen not to give recognition to the right of self-determination of First Nations and has unilaterally reduced First Nations to municipal governments in the Federal Inherent Right of Self-Government Policy; and,

Whereas the Federal Government is not advancing the First Nations agenda which calls for the true implementation of the Inherent Right to Self-Government and Treaty Implementation, in accordance with International covenants;

Therefore be it resolved that the Batchewana First Nation rejects the Indian Act amendment process, the entire scope and content of the process amendments, and any implementation by the Minister of Indian Affairs and the Government of Canada.

Since contact with people from over the oceans our indigenous nation has struggled to survive as a nation, as a people. Against all odds, it has survived. We are a sovereign nation, and sovereignty, the supreme power, comes from the Creator. The Creator placed us on this earth and gave us laws to live by. Our people have lived here from time immemorial. We are an equal among nations. Our Anishnabe people, who have lived a healthy way of life in a rich natural environment, have been greatly reduced in numbers to powerlessness and to dysfunctional communities as a result of disease from colonialism and foreign domination.

According to our people, we never reliniquished the right of self-determination or the right of self-government at the signing of the 1850 Robinson-Huron Treaty. Our forefathers brought about the 1850 Robinson-Huron Treaty in accordance with the laws provided by the crown for relations with the indigenous nations of North America.

.0910

Before the signing of this treaty, the chiefs were arrested and put in jail for stopping mining exploration and for stopping colonists settling in our territories without any right to do so.

In the 1982 Canadian Constitution, the 1763 Royal Proclamation became recognized, just as our forefathers did before the 1850 treaty. While the 1850 Robinson-Huron Treaty was being signed, the first Indian Act of 1850 came into being for the protection of the Indians of Upper Canada from an imposition on the property occupied and enjoyed by them, free from trespass and injury.

With so much land involved and with exploitation of Indians, the 1857 act for the gradual assimilation of the Indian tribles of Canada was passed without the involvment of the original nations. Our forefathers saw the treaty as nation-to-nation agreement for coexistence - that is, intergovernment relations. We need to live in harmony with all creation. However, only one side of the treaty has developed. Equal development has not taken place, nor have we been involved in co-management of the natural world.

Today our status as a nation among nations is not addressed, even though Canada has signed international covenants as standards to live by. This international decade of indigenous peoples and the declaration of indigenous peoples must be addressed for true justice, peace and harmony.

Meegwetch.

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms Neveau. Will your colleague be presenting?

Ms Madgiwan: My name is Carol Madgiwan. I am a councillor for the Batchewana First Nation.

The Indian Act and oppression: Beginning in 1850, the crown legislated the Indian Act, and in 1878 a confederated Indian Act was legislated, which firmly established the present reservation system of total control by the federal government of the indigenous nations of Canada. The government's Indian Act did not create a culture of assimilation. Rather, it is a culture of oppression and cultural genocide.

Today, the Batchewana First Nation operates under Canada's federal policies of the Indian Act regulations and the Indian Act legacy of INAC, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. The Canadian political structure and system does not recognize our right to self-determination or our nationhood, even though a nation-to-nation treaty took place between the crown and our nation.

We have a history of making petitions against destructive policies aimed at our people and the natural world. Our people have claims of their own: the old Indian Act, which allowed our traditional form of government; destructive fishing policies; the 1959 white paper policy to do away with our treaty rights and charter rights responsibilities; and in obligations towards Indians, the 1980 constitutional reforms, which attempted to ignore our treaty and aboriginal rights, as well as the present DIAND initiatives to implement the 1959 white paper policies.

Canadian colonialism and racism have had devastating effects on the Batchewana First Nation.

Primitive policies like colonialism, where people were dispossessed from their lands, economic self-sufficiency, discrimination through colonial policies such as the Indian Act and bad government that replaced our traditional form of government, forced assimilation education by Indian Affairs in conjunction with the...[Inaudible-Editor]...and Catholic residential school systems and the recent integrated school education system of the later 1960s... Children have often been taken away by the Children's Aid Society. As well, there has been a pressure to accept government programs and services or there are none at all.

.0915

As a result of colonialism and racism, our people have suffered tragedy and tremendous loss, mentally, physically and spiritually. There has been a loss of culture and a loss of identity. Our people have been denied development of the natural process of human development. Government-designed and government-funded programs are not compensation for cultural genocide and the generational effects of oppression as a result of discriminatory policies.

In Ontario in 1978 an evaluation made of the 1955 welfare agreement, which stated that all the government programs under the agreement were not accepted, that their programs would be found outside of our community. Really, for Ottawa it was a waste of money. The government continues to do that...[Inaudible-Editor]...fiscal planning, development of programs. The government continues to waste those dollars on programs that have been decided on the outside.

When you look at colonialism, I can give examples that have taken place in the Batchewana First Nation. I want to mention that the Batchewana First Nation is located at the centre of our universe, the centre of the Great Lakes, Sudbury. We invited you to come to our first nation, because a videoconference situation is new to us and new to our people. If you are interested and have legitimate questions about Indian affairs, your committee should really consider going out to first nations. Whatever Canada does decide to recognize, we are different, we do live in smaller communities, our educational level is not high. The hearings should have come to first nations. Batchewana First Nation would have welcomed you to our community, because -

The Chairman: If I may interrupt, we're having problems hearing due to problems with the system. I will ask you at this time to hold off for a few minutes. There's a technician on the way. Take a break for a few minutes and we'll be right with you.

.0918

.0953

The Chairman: We will resume the hearings.

To our friends in Sudbury, I can only apologize to you. I feel very badly about this. In this day and age, there's no reason for technology to work the way it's working this morning. I apologize. Please carry on.

Ms Madgiwan: Thank you. Before we carry on, can you identify yourself?

The Chairman: That's right; that's a good point. We should have done that at the beginning, but we were in a rush to get things going.

My name is Ray Bonin. I'm the member of Parliament for the riding of Nickel Belt and chairman of the committee. I have with me at the present time Mr. Rocheleau from the Bloc Québécois and Mr. Duncan from the Reform Party.

For the record, I would ask you to introduce yourself again before starting.

Ms Madgiwan: My name is Carol Madgiwan; I'm councillor for the Batchewana First Nation.

The Batchewana First Nation is located in Sault Ste. Marie. To us Anishinabec people, it is the centre of the universe. It is the centre of the Great Lakes.

Before we get into our notes, we want to make a couple of points for the Batchewana First Nation. We sent in a council resolution on our rejection of the Indian Act amendments; it was read by our Chief Neveau as we started our presentation.

We understand that 80% of first nations across the country voiced their rejection of the amendments and the process of what the minister was doing. If 80% of first nations sent in their rejection, we wonder about the legitimacy of our decision-making. If it's not honoured or respected by the government and by the minister, then something is wrong.

.0955

I'd like to voice our objection to the consultation process. This technology is totally inadequate and inappropriate and doesn't meet consultation standards of government.

We as a people are traditional people. We're not used to this interaction with a camera over there. If there is a question about the legitimacy of 80% of the band council resolutions or of resolutions or letters that are sent in by first nations, then this whole process needs to also be questioned. If government questions the legitimacy of our rejection, then government itself should come to our first nations so you can see firsthand who we are as a nation. You could sit and we could be talking to you on a one-to-one level.

Those are the two points we want to make. We don't agree with what the minister is doing - and our resolution speaks to that - and we don't agree with this consultation process. We are here, however, because hopefully it's going to be recorded and we want to be counted. So I'm going to continue with our presentation.

In talking about who we are, we've talked about the Indian Act and its oppression. We've talked about our experience of racism and colonialism. One of the things I want to do is talk about some examples of colonialism.

In Batchewana First Nation, we say we have been dispossessed of our land. Under the 1850 Robinson-Huron Treaty, Batchewana First Nation was guaranteed a 400-square-mile reservation. Later on, in 1859, there was the Pennefather Treaty, in which the Batchewana First Nation surrendered the entirety of its reservation and became homeless.

Shortly after this fraud, Batchewana established a history of purchasing some parcels of land, which were given reservation status. Today the Batchewana First Nation has approximately 5,765 acres, only 2% of its original reservation lands.

In the mid-1970s Canada established a land claims policy and process to deal with treaty land fraud issues and Indian Affairs' mismanagement of Indian lands. However, the land claims process has not been effective, since it is not an objective tribunal.

It took 12 years to settle our Whitefish Island claim, in which the initial four years involved negotiations to obtain recognition that we did have a valid claim. The Whitefish Island claim was settled in 1992, but the island still has not been given reserve status. The Batchewana First Nation is currently completing research work on the 1859 Pennefather Treaty.

Another example of colonialism is our denial of economic self-sufficiency. Under the 1850 Robinson-Huron Treaty, our Batchewana First Nation was guaranteed the treaty right to fish, as it was in the habit of doing. By doing so, our people reserved to ourselves the waters and the island as fishing stations.

After the signing of the 1850 treaty, Canada prohibited our commercial fisheries. In 1986 our Batchewana First Nation went before the Supreme Court on the Agawa case to recognize that the 1850 treaty right to fish included the right to fish commercially.

For over 100 years our fishermen and their families were denied economic self-sufficiency and were forced to live a life of poverty. In the meantime, Europeans were allowed to commercially fish and to fish for sport. In spite of these facts, our fishermen are blamed for depleting the fishery.

Because of the poverty situation, because of Canada's refusal to honour the treaty right to fish commercially, and because there is a lack of government funding support, our fishermen still rely on welfare.

We want to look at the 1985 amendments to the Indian Act. As of July 1996, the population of the Batchewana First Nation was 1,830 and there were 658 living on reserve and 1,172 living off reserve. The population of the Batchewana First Nation tripled as a result of the 1985 amendment to the Indian Act that removed those different discriminatory sections that were legislated by Parliament.

.1000

Reinstatement continues to have a profound effect on the Batchewana First Nation. The Canadian government has not fully compensated those who were discriminated against by Canada's Indian Act. Although the federal government initially provided limited funding for housing and post-secondary education, it has placed a ceiling on funding to first nations in these two areas, housing and education, and so on. So under the 1985 amendments Canada admitted it had done a wrong, but Canada has not met its compensation responsibility towards first nations.

When we turn to self-government, just recently, on February 16, 1997, the Batchewana First Nation was involved in negotiating self-government with the federal government. We saw the process as one of restoration whereas the federal government saw it as one of extinguishment of all rights and responsibilities. The principles of the federal government's inherent right to self-government policy do nothing to strengthen Canada's commitment to honour aboriginal treaty rights as provided in section 35 of Canada's 1982 Constitution.

On December 16 the Minister of Indian Affairs unilaterally terminated the North Shore self-government negotiating process. In 1991 the Batchewana First Nation joined the North Shore First Nations self-government negotiations with the federal government. It was with the understanding that the federal and provincial laws would remain until such time as these laws were replaced with our own laws.

Since we began that 1991 self-government process, we in our Batchewana First Nation have had many community workshops, we have conducted surveys, and there are certain things we have concluded from our own internal process. One of them is that self-government and the development of our own laws, the replacement of decolonization... By the way, certain things are very important and it's going to take time for us to do these things. We found our membership lacks knowledge, because of assimilation. The educational system is totally inadequate and doesn't tell people the true history of Indians here in Canada. It doesn't talk about the federal-Indian relationship.

So we see self-government taking time, and it's going to involve additional resources. It's important that we as first nations be allowed to take time with our people in our different community surveys and workshops. It has to be at their own pace. I also want to point out that was one of the points the North Shore Tribal Council made about dealing with the negotiation of self-government with the federal government, that it would take time and there should be flexibility to respond to people.

However, we want to point out that the federal government in its August 1995 inherent right of self-government policy stated that the federal and provincial laws will apply and that there will be no new moneys for Indian self-government. Although the self-government negotiations were in place, they have been subject to federal and court initiatives which have created community turmoil and havoc.

In 1993 certain members brought forward litigation against the federal government and the Batchewana First Nation. They wanted the right to vote for off-reserve members. They were using subsection 15(1) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of Canada's Constitution.

At the 1993 trial level we entered evidence that the Batchewana First Nation was involved in self-government negotiations which would deal with the development of our own governance and election rules. Although the trial decision stated that off-reserve members could not vote in band elections, it did decide that off-reserve members must vote on money matters. The decision was appealed and in 1996 the case was heard.

On November 21, 1996 the Federal Court of Appeal issued its judgment. It said it applied only to the Batchewana First Nation. However, a precedent has been established.

.1005

The judgment ordered that off-reserve must have the right to vote in the band's upcoming December election, in compliance with subsection 15(1) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of Canada's Constitution.

On December 4, 1996, a state order was granted with the stipulation that an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada be made by December 20. Some of the points in the judgment were the following.

The right to vote for officers did not include being able to stand for the position of a councillor nor nominate for the position of a councillor.

The judgment also stated that the Indian Act did not establish a municipal type of government, because the Indian Act deals with numbers and not with locations, as the municipality does.

Further, it stated that for the Batchewana First Nation, the aboriginal right to vote meant only the right to vote, without the Batchewana First Nation having the right to establish any qualifications or exclusions of voting that municipal, provincial, or federal governments have.

The Canadian court system is defining our powers as nations on a piecemeal approach, because the Constitution does not do so. Without this, Canadian political parties will continue to establish their four-year Indian policies based on their own interests. Justice requires law to guide a nation and law that reflects international standards.

We want to turn to Bill C-79 objections.

The consultation process of the minister is totally unacceptable. Issuing letters to first nations is not consultation. Such action is not in keeping with Canada's standards of consultation. The minister's consultation process is reflective of Canada's colonialistic policies and is reflective of paternalism and racism.

There is no need for Bill C-79, since the Governor in Council has had the power since 1876 to exempt first nations on reserves from a number of sections of the act. Further, according to the minister, the negotiated self-government agreement can be tailored to suit the particular first nation, and as a result the government can respond to certain first nations and their certain needs.

As a result, there is really no need for Bill C-79. The real issue, as stated by the Minister of Indian Affairs, has been that the Indian Act needs to be replaced altogether. As well, there needs to be a commitment at the higher level in terms of the Constitution.

A point that has been made about Bill C-79 is it will shorten delays. Bill C-79 will not shorten delays. Since many powers rest with the minister, there is still the matter of personal decision-making powers that the minister has.

We want to give you an example of this. On July 18, 1996, the councils of the Batchewana First Nation were unanimous and united in one voice in giving objection to the decision of the Minister of Indian Affairs to convene an inquiry into council's resolutions BCR95003, dated January 16, 1995; BCR95039, dated July 24, 1995; and BCR95040, dated July 24, 1995, in which we requested the minister to declare the office of chief to be vacant, pursuant to the Indian Act, subparagraph 78(2)(b)(ii).

Council's objections to an inquiry were based on the fact that INAC officials conducted a full investigation of the facts from January 1995 until November 1995...

I might explain to you that we had sent in those council resolutions requesting the minister to declare the office of the chief vacant. What I'm trying to do now is provide the information that we went through the process.

Indian Affairs did conduct their own internal investigation, after which the bureaucrats presented their recommendation to the minister, which was that the seat should be vacant. The minister turned around, called an inquiry, and appointed an independent judge, a retired judge, to hold an inquiry. After hearing from his staff and then appointing an inquiry...the judge made the same recommendation to the minister.

.1010

In our written submission we will provide you with this documentation. Bill C-79 says it will shorten the delay, but C-79 puts additional powers in the hands of the minister. Like everything else...here in Ontario, for example, there is an ombudsman people can go to if they are dissatisfied with administration. The ombudsman here in Ontario deals with administration fairness.

We as aboriginal people, as first nations people under the Indian Act, have no recourse. We are there at the whim and mercy of the minister. Bill C-79 does place more power with the minister, and there are no checks and balances in what a minister can do. Our evidence indicates that the minister has that authority. He doesn't have to accept the recommendations of his staff. He can have his own discretionary power to appoint a judge and bypass his own staff and their own investigation process.

The other thing they found in that whole period of dealing with our council resolution for removal of the chief was that the minister had contradicted himself. First of all, the minister had publicly contradicted himself in The Sault Star. On the one hand the minister stated in the January 18, 1995 Sault Star that the request to make the office of the chief vacant was an internal matter and it didn't involve the federal government. He further stated that the Batchewana First Nation has its own quasi-judicial process. We know we don't have that, but apparently the minister doesn't know what the whole thing is all about.

Then after approximately eighteen months, in June 1996, the minister appointed an inquiry to investigate the request of the band council for the removal of Chief Corbiere from office, after officials from INAC completed their investigation appeal process. Justice calls for due process, and due process must take place within a reasonable period. The response of the minister to our council resolution certainly extends beyond a reasonable time.

We want to make one point about the Bill C-79 signing of band council resolutions apart from council meetings. The Batchewana First Nation operates under the Indian Act and the regulations governing procedures of Indian band council meetings are followed by the council until such time as the membership approves of changes. One of the points we have made at the Batchewana First Nation is that until we have our own aboriginal laws we have agreed that yes, we will follow the Indian Act, because there has to be some law and order in our first nation.

According to the Indian Act, the decision-making authority of an Indian band rests with council. It rests with a quorum of council and a duly convened meeting of the council. Further, we put forward that a duly convened meeting is established with the consent of a majority of the councillors.

We find that the Bill C-79 acceptance that a band council resolution can be signed outside of a duly convened meeting is unacceptable, because it is not one respecting that we are a legitimate governing body. Again, we want to make sure our own self-governing powers... We are a responsible people, and we do have a responsible government, in spite of the fact that we do operate under the Indian Act. So we would oppose signing a resolution.

.1015

The Chairman: Thank you very much for your presentation. Again, I apologize for the inconvenience. I will say that it is a foreign system to you, and to us also. It is a system used by most committees now, but it's not perfect yet. It is what we have to live with in Ottawa now, though, because of budget restraints. There's no doubt about that. So it's not just this committee that does it this way; most committees do it like this now.

Members, we'll take fifteen minutes for questions, at five minutes per party. Who is first?Mr. Duncan.

Mr. Duncan (North Island - Powell River): Good morning. I hope you can hear us better than we can hear you, and I apologize for that. However, we were able to hear you by paying attention.

In order that I can get it clear in my own mind, the current chief-in-council set-up at Batchewana is based on a vote of members resident only. Am I correct on that?

Ms Madgiwan: That's correct. Only on-reserve members can vote.

Mr. Duncan: And that is still before the courts, is it not?

Ms Madgiwan: Yes, that's correct.

Mr. Duncan: When do you expect that it will be clarified?

Ms Madgiwan: We have made our application for leave to the Supreme Court. As you know, it's up to the Supreme Court to make that decision. We haven't heard, but our lawyers, our legal counsel, had filed within that December 20 deadline.

Mr. Duncan: You mentioned the power that resides in the minister under the Indian Act and under Bill C-79. You also mentioned that in some cases, you would like to have some kind of independent appeal mechanism. I think you gave the example of an ombudsman in the province of Ontario. This is something I've talked about in the past as well: the idea of having an arm's-length appeal mechanism for members of the band or, in your case, chief in council in order to offer another check and balance. Is there any kind of thought-out proposal in that regard?

Ms Madgiwan: I want to respond to you in a couple of ways. First, what we are saying in our presentation is that Canada does not recognize that we are nations in terms of international law. Our whole experience is therefore one of oppression. There is no justice. So in terms of land claims, for example, the public thinks we are claiming land to Canada. That's not the case. The land claims process for us deals with fraud that was committed under the 1850 treaty in respect to Batchewana, and it also deals with mismanagement of Indian lands. This is all a judicial question, yet it is called a land claims process. It's not under a court system.

Our objection to the land claims process is that it should be objective. We need to have the involvement of the international community to ensure that there is objectivity, to ensure that there is justice. What we also have to remember is that with what happened in Oka, the government responded with the federal Indian Claims Commission.

So in response to your question, we're talking about justice and fairness. When I mentioned the ombudsman, that was just an example in terms of Canadian society. Canadian society does have some recourse to deal with administration fairness, but we as first nations do not.

As first nations, we have said that we want to replace the Indian Act. The Penner report and the royal commission report state that the Indian Act should just be left alone because there are other processes that need to happen. For example, as I mentioned earlier, the Batchewana First Nation has been in the self-government process. It was with our understanding that federal law and provincial law would be replaced with our own aboriginal law.

.1020

Mr. Duncan: I'll leave it at that for the moment.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Duncan.

Mr. Murphy.

Mr. Murphy (Annapolis Valley - Hants): Thank you very much.

I'm sorry; I was a bit late coming, so I didn't hear a lot of your words.

I'm trying to determine something, and maybe you could help me. I'm under the impression that these changes in the act are, from what I can read, less paternalistic and are putting more power in the hands of the band councils and more power in the hands of the band itself.

I know the minister loses 11 or 12 and gains some, but some of the things he's gaining are things that, for instance, the Governor in Council does now just to speed up the process.

I often think if we can make some steps towards change and give what I hope is more authority and governance back to the native people... Where do we start? Some people say don't touch the act; others say scrap it altogether. Here I see an opportunity to take some steps to begin to put more power in the hands of the bands and the band councils. Could you help me with that?

Ms Madgiwan: In my presentation I did state that since 1878 the Governor in Council can make exemptions for different first nations. There is that flexibility there. As well, the government has begun a self-government process, where there can be self-government agreements with different first nations. There's that flexibility there again, where a government can meet the specific needs of first nations. So in the final analysis, Bill C-79, the proposed bill, didn't need to come about, because there is that flexibility.

The other thing the committee should be very well aware of is that the establishment of the process of the Indian Act involves two things. One, the Minister of Indian Affairs must have been quite well aware that the report of the royal commission was going to be coming out soon, so the federal government should have been gearing up for the release of the report as well as the process and the implementation.

We're not saying we agree with the recommendations, but in trying to deal with improving first nations' relationships with Canada, meeting the quality of life standards, and so on, the government could have waited. They didn't have to deal with the Indian Act amendments and could have dealt with looking at gearing up for a process to deal with the recommendations of the royal commission.

As I mentioned earlier, there was really no need for Bill C-79. Again, we have to keep in mind that the minister says he has consulted for four rounds. As we mentioned earlier, we do not accept as legitimate consultation the letters sent to the first nations and whatever feedback. Who can say what were the specific detailed requests of first nations when the minister issued those letters and there was that response from first nations? There are a lot of questions there.

The Chairman: Two minutes, Mr. Hubbard.

Mr. Hubbard (Miramichi): Mr. Chairman, I have quite a few questions.

When Mr. Mercredi was here last week, we heard that letters have been issued to your organization requesting consultation, and from the minister's perspective, answers were never given to those letters. I'd like to hear some comment on that in terms of consultation.

Also, in your presentation this morning, you seemed to indicate that from your perspective, the federal government was dealing with the 600 first nations in this country on an international level. You spoke about aboriginal laws being beyond either provincial or federal laws.

I have some difficulty with those statements. Perhaps you could elaborate on them to enable us to have your perspective on the relationships between our various governments and especially on how the laws of this country relate from sea to sea to sea.

.1025

Ms Madgiwan: One of the things we did say was that Canada does not use international standards. Take, for example, the right of self-determination. Even though Canada has signed different international covenants, Canada as a nation does not forward these.

We also know that Canada is involved in dealing with the International Decade of the World's Indigenous Peoples as well as with the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. We don't hear that at the first nations level, and that's not taken into account in terms of negotiations and relationships with first nations.

Say we're talking about the question of law and equality. We, as first nations, agreed for coexistence to have a relationship with the crown, who is or was a nation, and we are a nation ourselves. There is that nation-to-nation relationship.

We never agreed to come under the colony of Canada. I don't think that's a point you take. You have to look at the fact that we, as the Batchewana First Nation, are located at the centre of the Great Lakes. Our relatives on the U.S. border, the Sault tribe and the Bay Mills tribe, both have the status and understanding such that they are recognized as sovereign tribal governments in the United States. Granted, there are problems between the U.S. federal government and U.S. tribes in terms of the U.S. government exercising power and intervening in the rights of those tribal nations in the United States.

Here in Canada, we do not have that recognition. Right now in Canada, in the terms of our paper, we are saying that section 35 is an empty box. As I mentioned, we have gone to the Supreme Court to deal with the treaty right to fish to have it read that it does mean the commercial right to fish, and that our people were a self-sufficient people before the start of the Robinson-Huron Treaty of 1850. As well, for our current issue of officer voting, we are now going to the Supreme Court again.

To us, section 35 is empty. Canada does not recognize that we have any rights as a people. Our aboriginal rights and our treaty rights really don't mean anything in Canada.

The Chairman: This completes the first presentation.

I will again, for the record, ask all of you to give out your names and whom you represent.

Ms Madgiwan: I'm Carole Madgiwan. I'm a councillor with the Batchewana First Nation.

Chief Neveau: My name is Angela Neveau. I am chief of the Batchewana First Nation.

Mr. Seyers: I'm Joe Thom Seyers. I'm with the Batchewana First Nation.

The Chairman: Thank you very much. Again, I apologize for the inconvenience and the delay. It was beyond our control. I really appreciate your cooperation. Thank you.

We now invite, from the Missanabie Cree First Nation, Chief Shirley Horn.

We were expecting Chief Shirley Horn. Is there an explanation that can be given to the committee?

.1030

Grand Chief Joseph Hare (Union of Ontario Indians): Mr. Chairman, the presenter is not here in the room yet, but there are others who are prepared to speak to the committee.

The Chairman: Okay, thank you very much.

Is this Chief Joseph Hare?

Grand Chief Hare: That's right.

The Chairman: Well, thank you very much for agreeing to help us proceed, because we have already been delayed by technical difficulties.

Chief Hare, my name is name is Ray Bonin, and I'm the chairman of the committee. With me are Mr. Rocheleau from the Bloc Québécois, Mr. Duncan from the Reform Party, and Mr. Murphy and Mr. Hubbard from the Liberal Party.

You are quite familiar with the process, so I will invite you to make your presentation. We have forty minutes together, so we would appreciate it if you could allow some time for us to ask questions.

Grand Chief Hare: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and good morning to the rest of the committee members.

My name is Joseph Hare, and I am the duly elected grand council chief of the Anishinabek Nation. I am elected in the manner prescribed by the chiefs and councils of the 43 first nation communities that have decided to be part of the Anishinabek Nation. Not all first nation communities are part of this nation. The previous presentation by Batchewana is an example; that first nation has decided not to be part of the Anishinabek Nation.

The process of election is done at the grand council assembly of the first nation community chiefs, and this custom began well over 150 years ago. It might surprise you to learn that this system of electing the grand council chief is done through a process designed by the chiefs, and not by any white government regulations or acts. It might also surprise you to learn that it has worked quite well during all of this time. Regulations or acts, whether they pertain to elections - as in my case - or other affairs of the first nations people, seem to work really well when they are first-nation-government designed, as opposed to being imposed by the regulations of non-Indian governments.

This leads me to the central theme of my presentation this morning. The first nations communities that I represent do not want, nor do they need, the changes being proposed under the Indian Act Optional Modification Act, Bill C-79. For the record, I had written to the Minister of Indian Affairs last year, advising him to postpone any contemplated changes to the Indian Act. The reason I did this was that we are now following through on plans to formally record and enact laws of our own, laws by which the Anishinabek will conduct their affairs.

The Anishinabek Nation, through its grand council, is proceeding to resume authority and jurisdiction and therefrom to develop all of the laws, rules, regulations, and procedures needed to govern the future of the Anishinabek. The governance structure to be utilized is derived from the rights and powers of the Anishinabek citizens and their first nation community governments.

We are relying on ourselves in securing our future. These rights and powers of the Anishinabek have always been there. They are inherent; they came with our being.

.1035

This is why no one else except the Anishnabe should be meddling with our lives. We have the right to take back and assume our full responsibilities. The only change we could support is a stronger constitutional recognition of our indigenous governments.

This recognition is for the Canadian people, so they know what has always been. It is not for us, because we know this already. It is the Canadian people who need to be constitutionally directed to give legal recognition to the Indian nation reality.

Changes such as those now being proposed by the Canadian government only serve to negate what we are doing. But not only do they negate. They also cause considerable setbacks for the first nations. The fifteen-minute time limit I have does not allow me to list all the negative and detrimental effects of the Indian Act changes now and in the past. Nonetheless, I will take time to cite at least one example.

Proposed section 16.1 speaks of a band being recognized as a natural person. This takes away from the sui generis status of the bands at present. If this is changed, the seizure of land ordered by white courts becomes a real possibility and a real probability. The 1927 version of the Indian Act had a section which allowed for Indian lands to be patented under section 8. The consequence of this section was that it allowed for Indian lands to be taken from the bands through court orders. Where I come from hundreds of acres of land was lost in this way. This section was later dropped, but the damage was done. Changes which affect land were not acceptable then and they are not acceptable now. If land has been taken away already, stop it.

The Indian Act over and over again is rendered farcical at the whim of the courts, the government, and the business sector. For example, the trespass section is virtually unenforceable. Band funds get seized despite the seizure exemption. Band by-laws are ignored by Canadian businesses, the provincial governments, and the municipalities. Taxation rules are applied and tax exemptions on GST and PST in Ontario are not definitive and are often ignored.

As you can see, the Indian Act changes historically have had a negative effect on first nations people. Loss of land, loss of rights, and loss of entitlements are inevitably the consequence of the changes.

The most damaging consequence is the division caused among the first nations people and their leaders. The nationhood approach, as recommended by the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, is not provided for under the present Indian Act, nor in its proposed amendments, nor in the daily processes of the Department of Indian Affairs. Instead individual first nations may be favoured, which continues to undermine the nationhood concept and which further fractures our collective good.

Even in these presentations today by a number of first nations that will be making recommendations, many of the recommendations will be contradictory.

.1040

I was advised before coming here to recommend certain changes to the Indian Act Optional Modification Act, because changes will inevitably be put in place. How unfortunate, in view of what I have said, and in view of what has happened in the past. I cannot bring myself to recommend changes to the act. Indian Act changes, of whatever nature, are not at all what we want, are not at all what we need, and are not at all what we can use.

The only thing I can say to you again is this: If the Government of Canada wants to introduce an act respecting first nations, it should introduce an act that brings real justice and recognition of first nations people - an act that recognizes our treaty and aboriginal rights, defines the legal obligations of the Canadian government, and reaffirms the Indian nations' legislative capacity, the presence of Indian nations' laws, and the application of Indian nations' judicatures.

That is my brief presentation to you this morning, Mr. Chairman and the committee. I thank you very much. Meegwetch in Ojibway means ``thank you''. I'm open for questions.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Chief Hare.

Now I invite committee members, for the first round, to introduce yourselves and to ask your questions. Who will be first?

[Translation]

Mr. Rocheleau, for the Bloc Québécois.

Mr. Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières): Good morning, Mr. Hare. Thank you for your presentation.

I'd like to have your opinion on the section of the bill dealing with band elections. It is stipulated that an elector is a band member who ordinarily resides on the reserve. This means that nuances and clarifications are in order. Who are the people who can be deemed residents as opposed to those who live off-reserve? What is your opinion on this matter and could tell us about the effect this could have on your people?

[English]

Grand Chief Hare: I'll be glad to answer that. By way of observation as to the types of questions you're asking, I think you've missed a point that was made by the presenters before me, and you've missed the point entirely of what I said.

It is none of your business how we elect our leadership. It is not the business of your committee, the minister, or the Government of Canada. We had laws before that governed the selection system of our leadership, and we want to take back those laws and exercise them. It is for the Indian people, the Indian citizens, to determine those kinds of questions you raise as to how old a person ought to be, where they ought to live, and whether there ought to be women, youth, or elders voted.

The Chairman: Who will be next? Mr. Duncan, please.

Mr. Duncan: Thank you for that response. I think we've heard that point of view many, many times, and we understand the point of view. Maybe we just have some obvious difference of opinion on it.

I would like to go to the heart of the section you were talking about, which is proposed section 16.1. It is my understanding that many bands now, when they set up to do any kind of business operation, do it under a development corporation. I'm trying to understand why the minister would be pushing proposed section 16.1 when a band can do business under a development corporation, and what's in proposed section 16.1 would already apply to the development corporation.

.1045

I guess what I'm trying to ask is who is this going to appeal to? Are there some bands in the country that this proposed section will actually appeal to, bands that can't somehow use a development corporation to achieve the same purpose? Do you have some insight that maybe could help us?

The Chairman: Chief.

Grand Chief Hare: I think for expediency reasons some first nations choose to utilize development corporations. That is an expedient way of getting around the difficulties of achieving and reaching certain economic goals and projects. But I think in the long haul - and that is what we have to look at in this exercise - we have to look at the capacity and recognize that first nations chiefs and councils are very legitimate governments and it is not necessary to find other ways and means, such as proposed section 16.1, to go around what legitimately is the right of these leaders, the chiefs and councils, to make decisions on.

Mr. Duncan: I'm back to my starting point there. I'm not sure how to pursue that.

What we heard from Chief Mercredi was that what this proposed section does, in their legal opinion, is remove the fiduciary obligation of the minister. Do you share that opinion? Proposed section 16.1 has the effect downstream of removing the fiduciary obligation of the minister and the department.

Grand Chief Hare: It may well have that effect. I spoke only of the other effects the proposed section would cause to happen. One of the concerns I have is that the land can easily be taken away, because if the chief and council are recognized as a natural person they are subject to being sued. When litigators do their thing, they sue everybody and they want everything the band has in assets, so land can easily be taken away through this recognition of chief and council as a natural person. They are not a natural person.

The problem with this whole business is that the Government of Canada and everybody else try to make us be and do what you guys are doing, the white people, the johnny-come-latelies to this country. You have sat down and put on white ways and wrote stuff on paper and said this is the law you have made for the Indian people. I just don't think that's right to do. We don't make laws for your house, and we don't want you to make laws for our house.

Mr. Duncan: You said Indian governments are responsible governments. There's no guarantee that is the case; and I've heard this expressed by many aboriginal people. It doesn't follow automatically that because it's an elected aboriginal government it will be responsible. So what checks and balances would you suggest to protect the individual member?

Grand Chief Hare: Sir, what we suggest is that our legal systems, which we are developing, be recognized. So if we have disputes, these disputes or other disagreements will be resolved by our own people who are placed to be adjudicators in the cases that come before them. It should not be the Minister of Indian Affairs, and it certainly should not be anybody except first nations people.

.1050

I'm not saying that because we have a system of elections it's going to be perfect and people will not be responsible, but we are building a check and balance system comprised of at least a legal resolution mechanism and eventually a Nishnawbe court where our own people render decisions about what is right and proper. The politicians, the chief, and the councillors would have to listen to that final decision rendered by the Nishnawbe court.

Mr. Duncan: I don't want to give the wrong impression. I'm certainly not in favour of more powers residing in the minister, but we do need these independent organizations.

In the case of a national federation election we have Elections Canada, and provincial bodies have similar elections bodies. You're contemplating that there would be something similar for aboriginal elections. This is sort of what I hear. Correct?

Grand Chief Hare: Yes, by all means. Indian elders, for example, would render very fair decisions when disputes were placed before them.

Mr. Duncan: That's fine.

The Chairman: Mr. Hubbard.

Mr. Hubbard: I'd like to follow up on the land question. It appears the Grand Chief has concerns about that section. From what I've read in the report on the aboriginal..., we're led to believe that over the years lands have been forfeited or given up wrongly by various first nations and the crown did not protect those reservations and land groups.

In terms of your presentation this morning on the question of land and the general concept that the Government of Canada should not be dictating to the various first nations, who or what will protect reserve lands in the future if we accept your attitudes and philosophy on how first nations are to govern their lands?

Grand Chief Hare: Forgive me, but you have to recognize the authority and wisdom of the chiefs and councils. We have never consented to lose any of our land. We are the biggest protectors of the land. It's the white people who took it away.

I don't want to have a continuing situation where governments other than Indian governments watch over our land. They've done a hell of a poor job. So I rely on the leadership that is chosen by the Indian people - that is, the chief and the councils - to protect the interests of the people.

Mr. Hubbard: What if they are not protected? We'll take the example of an irresponsible administration that sells off part of the reserve lands. You're stating, Grand Chief, that there would be nothing wrong with that decision? Or should the Government of Canada continue to try to protect the lands that were set aside for the first nations peoples?

Grand Chief Hare: If we recognize that the power rests with the people and then is given and assigned to the chief and council to administer the people's affairs, and if the people recognize that it is they who are empowered to make decisions on land, I am telling you they will never just surrender land. They would never allow the chief and council to surrender land.

Mr. Hubbard: Grand Chief, we've seen examples of various first nations who, during the past 100 years, have encountered economic difficulties and by groups have sold off lands. Many of those so-called land problems today are going back to the courts in the form of land claims, but you state they would never do that.

History doesn't point to that. Certain first nations have somehow negotiated or given up their lands to those you call johnny-come-latelies. Those johnny-come-latelies have held that land for a long period of time.

.1055

Grand Chief Hare: The original people have held the land for a hell of a lot longer than anybody else in this continent. But that having been said, the land that was lost was certainly not lost with the approval of any first nation individual I ever met in my entire life. This land was taken deceitfully, the dealings were crooked, and there's enough evidence around to indicate that.

I don't see how you could set yourself up to be a protector of Indian lands.

The Chairman: Mr. Murphy.

Mr. Murphy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chief Hare, I recognize that in the past a lot of injustices happened. One of the reasons I sit on this committee is to see if we can't find ways and means of doing something about those injustices. But I'm also concerned that if we just live in the past, we never move forward.

I haven't taken into account that the minister's Bill C-79 was put forward in a manner that would try to hoodwink the first nations people. My understanding of the legislation is that it's trying to put more power back into the band and council.

You said this whole bill negates what you are trying to do. That was your terminology. Are you suggesting maybe we should just dump the Indian Act and leave it? How could you tell me that some of these changes negate what you as a nation are trying to achieve? Could you help me with this? I get caught in the middle of this thing, and I don't know who to listen to, for God's sake, but you might be able to help me.

Grand Chief Hare: I'll give it a try. I'm sorry there's a misunderstanding here.

I think the record will show that since the first Indian Act came into play that Indian Act has been the way Indian people have been forced to live. That act and the terms and conditions and everything in it were done by non-Indians. They were done by white governments. They were done by the Canadian government. We're simply saying isn't it about time you recognized the decisions the leadership of the first nations make, because those decisions they make do greater good for the Indian people than the decisions we are forced to make under the Indian Act.

Mr. Murphy: Just to follow up, do you buy that any of these changes in there, the powers that are gained by the band, the powers that are gained by the council, are a step in the right direction, or do we never start to make some changes that are going to advance the causes of our first nations people? What I'm gathering when I listen to discussions is that nobody wants to do anything in bits and bobs. They want to do the whole thing. I have difficulty in seeing the whole change in one fell swoop, because all of us need to have an opportunity to learn as we move. Are there any steps we can take without changing the whole ball of wax?

Grand Chief Hare: There are many steps we can take. But the point you keep missing, and I believe the whole committee has missed and the minister has missed, is that it is not for you to make the changes or to recommend the changes. It is up to the Indian people and their leadership to advocate the kind of changes they want to see. Who gave you the right to come and tell us how to live? We're just saying stop it; recognize the capacity of our own people to make changes that are beneficial to those they serve.

.1100

The Chairman: Are there any other questions? No?

Chief Joseph Hare, thank you very much for your presentation, and also for accommodating us in our late schedule.

We next have Chief Sam Stone, from the Michipicoten First Nation.

Chief Stone, welcome, and thank you very much for being with us this morning. My name is Ray Bonin. I'm the chairman of the committee. With me from from the Bloc Québécois isMr. Rocheleau, and here from the Liberal Party are Mr. Murphy and Mr. Hubbard.

We have forty minutes together. We invite you to make a presentation, and we ask that you allow some time for questions from members.

Chief, please proceed.

Chief Sam Stone (Michipicoten First Nation): Good morning. I'm Chief Sam Stone, of the Michipicoten First Nation. My first nation is one of the original signatories of the Robinson-Superior Treaty of 1853.

I've been following Bill C-79. Personally, I'd like to express my dissatisfaction with the present process, which is not consistent with the minister's public promise. Our preference would have been that the committee come into our territory to hear our priorities and concerns directly from all our first nations.

All of us here today are taking a united stand, I believe, on Bill C-79. I honestly believe we all have similar feelings on the bill. From the beginning, there have been concerns that the minister wanted to rush this bill through Parliament to prevent proper debate on and consideration of the issue. I hope this is not the case, and that the committee will uphold its role as a forum for these considerations of the issue. The message I would like to deliver to this committee encompasses a series of points, and hopefully some answers to our questions will be given by this committee.

When I think of a partnership definition, it's a legal relationship of two or more parties who share responsibilities, resources, profits and liabilities. It comes to mind that partnerships are not built on mutual trust and friendship. I do not believe the cornerstone of the Liberal government's aboriginal policy promises have been respected. There have been no substantive consultations or partnerships with first nations. The Minister of Indian Affairs has ignored our process, which rejected the draft legislation, and has acted unilaterally.

We want true partnership. We want to work together towards mutual benefits, and to solve some problems created by past legislation. We need to chart our course to provide the needed solutions to these issues that we face on a daily basis. We are willing to approach this issue with a positive and cooperative spirit, but we're tired of governments directing us as they have in the past, as that is what created the problems we face today.

The draft legislation is negative and backward-looking. The changes I address are not based on our visions, culture or transactions. This legislation is trying to fix a control-policy piece of legislation that does not meet our present needs or reflect today's reality. With the amendments, we as first nations are not treated with a nation-to-nation relationship, but are treated as wards.

Solutions and alternatives can be reached, but they can only be reached if both parties are willing to come to terms with the issues. Workable alternatives to this legislation have been offered. We have asked the federal government to work with us in designing special processes for the implementation of our rights.

.1105

The first step we are proposing is a joint process of the federal government which makes our rights not conditional on the agreement of the federal or provincial governments. The royal commission has made recommendations that no tinkering should have been made to the Indian Act by the federal government. We would like an immediate mutual recognition of our respective authorities as governments in Canada and a plan for a phased-in invitation of our authority and jurisdiction. Negotiations should be carried out on a nation-to-nation basis and the original spirit and intent of the treaty must be emphasized.

When we look at the federal legislation policy, there is no consideration of the federal government's statement of the recognition of inherent treaty or aboriginal rights. The government is constantly fighting legal issues against our rights. As I stated before, and as I will continue to state, we are open and willing to work with and help government in changing the legislation policy. What we are offering here is a true partnership in providing solutions to these issues.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Chief Stone. We will now proceed to questions.

[Translation]

Mr. Rocheleau.

Mr. Rocheleau: Good morning, Mr. Stone. I am going to ask you the same question I asked your colleague.

It has to do with the section of the bill dealing with elections in each of the Indian bands. There is a distinction in the bill between people who ordinarily reside on the reserve, and who are eligible to vote, and those who live off-reserve. What is your opinion on this matter? Could you tell us about the effect this provision could have on your people?

[English]

Chief Stone: I really think the people who live off the reserve don't really know what is going on on the reserves. Most of my membership live in Toronto and Thunder Bay and B.C. Why would they even want to vote if they didn't know what was going on on the reserve itself?

[Translation]

Mr. Rocheleau: Do you know approximately what is the percentage of your members who live off-reserve?

[English]

Chief Stone: Right now I have about 85% living off the reserve, for the simple reason that the government doesn't give us enough money for housing.

[Translation]

Mr. Rocheleau: Have those who live off-reserve reacted to the bill?

[English]

Chief Stone: We haven't heard from any of our members off the reserve about the legislation, but all the people on our reserve had to make some really quick decisions because even for this committee I got notified on Friday night that I was supposed to speak here today. That gave me actually only a day to talk to my people. That's not very much time. It wasn't very considerate of you to do that.

.1110

[Translation]

Mr. Rocheleau: Should we expect some of them to find the legislation discriminatory because they might be deprived of their right to vote? Do you think it might be a problem?

[English]

Chief Stone: I don't believe so. That's because of the simple reason that people who are a thousand miles away can't really know what's going on in a reserve.

[Translation]

Mr. Rocheleau: Thank you, Mr. Stone.

[English]

The Chairman: Chief Stone, I understand that you were contacted on Friday to verify that you would in fact be here today, but the contact was made long before that, is that correct? Was Friday the first contact?

Chief Stone: We had some letters. We had a chance to talk before, and we wrote letters back then saying that we didn't want this bill pushed through. Then, all of a sudden, on Friday, they told me that I was supposed to be here speaking with the committee today.

The Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Murphy.

Mr. Murphy: Good morning to you, Chief.

I know you've expressed a good deal of difficulty with the consultation process that has led up to this bill. Besides the process, when we get into looking at the bill itself, I see where there are nine provisions for the band to gain more power. I see - I'm sure you're familiar with these - that there are 16 more provisions that take things away from the minister and the department that give more to the band of what I think is more direction toward self-governance.

Are any of those changes that are going to be made or could be made with regard to the band and the council gaining more powers of any relevance at all to you and your people?

Chief Stone: No. I've been saying here that I've gone to three assemblies this year already, and this bill was rejected at all three.

The minister was at two of them. He just got mad and walked out. That's not the way to talk to native people.

Mr. Murphy: So you see none of these changes to be beneficial at all?

Chief Stone: We already told the minister that at three different assemblies, and he just won't listen to us.

The Chairman: I must get this on the record, because I can't repeat it every time we have a witness. This is the first time that I am saying this.

As for what has happened in the department and with the minister, we have to be aware that this bill no longer belongs to the minister, but to this committee. We have been given a job to peruse, evaluate, amend if need be, and return this bill to the House of Commons. So a lot of reference is made to the department and the minister, but this bill now belongs to this committee.

Although I'm not ruling out of order any presentation that does not relate to the bill, that will not be considered by members, because we have to stick exactly to the letter of the words inside the bill that has been entrusted to us.

I'd like that to be on the record to be clear.

Are there any other questions?

Mr. Hubbard: Good morning, Chief. I can't help but be concerned when I heard you - maybe I didn't hear it correctly - indicate that 85% of your people live off reserve. Is that so?

Chief Stone: That's right. The reason for this is that we haven't got enough money to build houses and build up our economy.

Mr. Hubbard: So Chief, it is for economic reasons that they leave, but as the chief, do you feel an equal responsibility for the people who live off reserve, or is your main concern the 15% of your people who live on reserve? I'm just trying to reflect on that in terms of the attitudes that our committee might have in terms of this change and whether or not we're looking at the total problem or merely the problems with the people who live as first nations on a particular piece of land called the reserve.

.1115

Chief Stone: As every chief in Ontario will tell you, they look after all their people. Even if you have some people who don't belong directly to your reserve, you still try to help them out.

Mr. Hubbard: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Any other questions?

Do you wish to make any closing remarks, Chief?

Chief Stone: I'd just say that I don't like seeing this bill pushed through. I wish there had been more consultation on this, especially with our head leaders. We have three grand chiefs and we have regional chiefs who could negotiate these things. They could hear from us and they could bring it back to you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Chief Stone.

Now we will hear from the chairman of the Wabun Tribal Council, Shawn Batiste. Chief Batiste is not scheduled to appear until 11:30, and we are fifteen minutes ahead of schedule.

Is Chief Shirley Horn present in Sudbury? No? Thank you. Is anyone else there who is to present today?

We will suspend until 11:30. If Chief Batiste should show up before that, please give us an indication. Thank you.

.1118

.1212

The Chairman: This is Chair Ray Bonin calling Sudbury. I understand the representative from the Henvey Inlet First Nation group is not there yet and Chief Harvey Tetahtegoose from the North Shore Tribal Council has agreed to offer his presentation at this time. Is that correct?

Chief Harvey Tetahtegoose (North Shore Tribal Council): Yes, that's correct.

The Chairman: Thank you very much for accommodating us at this time and for being here.

The time allocated for your presentation is 40 minutes maximum, and we invite you to use the time whichever way you wish, but we would appreciate it if you would allow some time for members to ask questions.

If you have someone with you, please identify yourself and your colleague at the same time, before you start. Thank you.

Chief Tetahtegoose: I'm Chief Harvey Tetahtegoose from Whitefish Lake First Nation, which belongs to the North Shore Tribal Council. With me is Roger Jones from Sagamok First Nation.

The Chairman: Thank you very much. Please proceed.

Chief Tetahtegoose: I'll do the submission to the standing committee on northern development regarding Bill C-79.

The North Shore Tribal Council has seven communities within its membership, including Batchewana, Garden River, Mississagi, Serpent River, Sagamok, Thessalon, and Whitefish Lake. The North Shore Tribal Council territory extends from Sudbury to Sault Ste. Marie along the north shore of Lake Huron and northern Ontario.

.1215

The North Shore First Nations have a history of cooperative interaction and have maintained a special relationship amongst themselves through their shared language, their land, their treaty, and the principles and values that make up the understanding of their existence.

On a formal basis, the North Shore Tribal Council was established in 1981 with the approval and adoption of a tribal council constitution. The purpose of the tribal council as defined in its constitution is to unify, maintain, and expand the interests, lives, and identity of band members.

To meet its objectives, the tribal council is empowered to advance positions taken by the member first nations, established policies, and strategies that are acceptable to members and to promote local band government through its various operations, programs, and services. The principle of consensus decision-making informs activity at all levels of the organization.

In terms of electoral riding geography, the members of Parliament who represent ridings in the North Shore First Nations territory include Minister Ron Irwin, Ray Bonin, and Brent St. Denis. All are members of the governing Liberal Party, who campaigned on the infamous red book, which had many promises related to first nations issues. However, there were none relating to the entrenchment of domination and colonialism with respect to Canada and first nations relationships.

One use this Indian Act amendment initiative does serve is to assess the Liberal government's performance pursuant to the red book promises. The grand promise of a new partnership through the implementation of the inherent right of self-government cannot in any way, shape, or form succeed when the power or control is denied to whom it belongs, which is the real result, not that Bill C-79 would give first nations further control over and greater responsibility for their own lives and their own communities, as the minister believes.

Silence is not consent. We believe it necessary for the North Shore Tribal Council to deliver its message personally and to register our no vote to this initiative, because it seems silence will be interpreted as support for or affirmation of this initiative. Such is not surprising, since that principle is actually embodied in the Indian Act by way of the Indian band council procedure regulations, where it states in section 20: ``A member'' - of a band council - ``who refuses to vote shall be deemed to vote in the affirmative.''

Therefore, under no circumstances can the minister, this committee, the House of Commons, or the courts deem North Shore First Nations to be in support of Bill C-79 or indiscriminate use of constitutional and fiduciary power pursuant to section 91, class 24 of the Constitution Act, 1867.

As to assimilation, the North Shore Tribal Council does not support any initiative relating to modifying the act to make it appear less offensive, because making it less offensive or less paternalistic is simply not possible. Civilizing and assimilating Indians, which the Indian Act stands for, is an objective and purpose that cannot be eradicated from the act, no matter how much spin-doctoring the Minister of Indian Affairs is doing in his desperate attempts to legitimize racism or to defend human rights violations.

Furthermore, any further effort to legitimize amendments to the Indian Act as a vehicle of empowering first nations people to manage their own affairs is a misguided rationale.

The policy of encouraging self-government on the one hand while retaining control is inconsistent. Moreover, the external reputation that Canada is a leader in human rights cannot coexist with the internal agenda that sees the continuation of the domination and colonialism relationship with the first nations peoples in Canada.

.1220

The policy of assimilation has been a constant feature of Canadian policy, and we believe that to be one of the important objectives embodied in Bill C-79. Examples are as follows: the incorporation of first nations societies and their property; the entrenchment of Canadian real estate law; the entrenchment of Canadian personal property law; the entrenchment of Canadian matrimonial and family law; and the entrenchment of a municipal type of government.

First, assimilation usually makes people more resistant. Therefore voluntary assimilation is an approach that may again be seen to be more effective, and which is done through introducing non-aboriginal concepts to the first nations communities in the hope that first nations will embrace such concepts by opting into the legislation.

Such was the thinking going back to the 1860s, when band council or municipal-type government was first introduced as optional. It was introduced as a voluntary measure. However, it was soon determined by Indian Affairs officials that the new plan of appointment, the elective band council system, has found as yet little acceptance with the Indian people in general. They have evinced no desire to identify themselves with the new order of things, or to give effect to it by applying for authority to hold elections.

Indian Affairs branch 1871 annual report... In 1880 and again in 1884, the act was amended to make it possible for the government to impose the elective system when the Governor in Council deemed it advisable.

``Where the Indians are more advanced in education and feel more confident, more willing to undertake a part in self-government, they shall elect band councils much the same as the whites do in the neighbouring townships.'' These words were spoken by Sir John A. Macdonald, but they sure sound a lot like the words of Minister Ron Irwin when he talks about the differing levels of progressiveness among first nations across the country today.

There is every reason to feel that at some point in the near future the optional intent of Bill C-79 will be replaced with the principle of universality of application. First nations have endured the heavy hand of the federal government for far too long, and this initiative is just another example whereby in order for the federal government to save Indians from paternalism or to encourage them to assume greater control... But it ends up destroying traditional Indian societies, traditional governments, traditional property rights and the opportunities for Indians to regain control over their lives and property.

Fiduciary relationship issues: In Canadian law there is authority by way of case law that establishes that Parliament has fiduciary duties to first nations. In the Sparrow case, the Supreme Court of Canada established that section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, requires that the government has the responsibility to act in a fiduciary capacity in its dealings with aboriginal peoples, including enactment of legislation.

It appears the use of section 91(24) authority such as Bill C-79, relating to law-making on matters related to ``Indians, and Lands reserved for Indians'', requires the House of Commons to be acting in accordance with their fiduciary responsibilities, which means that members of the House of Commons ought to satisfy themselves that section 35 is not being violated, and that legislative measures are in effect beneficial.

Furthermore, the preamble in Bill C-79 itself recognizes the fiduciary relationship, where it states, ``Whereas the Government of Canada respects the special historic relationship between Her Majesty and Indians''. It is simply not good enough for the members of the House of Commons or this committee to accept the word of the minister or his officials that rights are not being violated and that in the long run these measures will benefit the first nations peoples. Proof should be demanded, because that is the standard the Supreme Court of Canada has established. There is no such proof.

In addition, the House of Commons may be participating in an exercise that could in the future be interpreted by the courts as a legitimate exercise of constitutional power to terminate first nations rights, or that Parliament has complete or tyrannical power over first nations by using its section 91(24) authority at will against the wishes of the majority of first nations peoples.

Such is the case in the United States, where the United States Supreme Court believes that the power of Congress in Indian affairs is plenary, or complete to the point where they can terminate Indian tribes if they wish to do so. Is this the path the Canadian legislators seek to establish? We hope not, and the Supreme Court of Canada has expressed otherwise as well.

.1225

We believe that Bill C-79, optional or otherwise, is detrimental to our rights and interests - devolution versus evolution. In his speech to the Alberta chiefs summit in March 1985, where he first publicly announced the Indian Act amendment initiative, Minister Irwin stated that legal relationships between the minister and first nations are defined through the Indian Act, despite an earlier acknowledgement in the same speech that treaties set out the fundamental relationship between first nations and Canada.

It seems the minister does not appreciate the difference between the true basis of the first nations and crown relationship, which is equality, voluntariness, and by agreement. The Indian Act is artificially defined or manufactured by law. If he does that, he favours and gives effect to the relationship whereby he asserts power and control over first nations.

In looking at what the minister stated back in March 1995, and the following developments surrounding the Indian Act amendment initiative - despite first nations rejections thereof, it is clear that this minister and the Liberal government merely pay lip service to issues like treaties, self-government, and a new partnership. The real problem in dealing with these issues lies in the old policies of the past, which are reflected in the proposed amendments such as concentrating greater power in the hands of the minister, and more governmental control by way of new regulations we haven't seen yet.

The old relationships will be maintained in the future because of the government's preoccupation with the Indian Act, instead of developing new partnerships by way of self-government, arrangements, treaties, etc.

In the preamble, Bill C-79 boldly declares increased band council authority in local governments will be available as an option to band councils as an interim measure, until such time as self-government agreements are in place.

Earlier in our presentation we expressed our doubts that this initiative is interim in nature, because of the record of the past and because of our own experiences. In 1991, North Shore Tribal Council and Canada entered into an agreement on an agenda and process for the negotiation of an agreement in principle on North Shore First Nations government arrangements. The agreement established a plan to meet the challenge of negotiating arrangements that would have first nations governments coexisting with Canadian governmental authority. There was no limitation period in terms of when the arrangements had to be negotiated, but there was an ambitious two-year work plan separate from the agreement on the agenda and process. It was a funding agreement that facilitated the flow of federal government funds to the North Shore Tribal Council for devolvement activity and negotiation costs.

Both agreements provided termination clauses that were basically 60-day notice periods available to either party if the desire was to terminate. Sure enough, despite the Liberal government's pledge and promises to enter new partnerships with the first nations and to implement the inherent right of self-government, the Minister of Indian Affairs served notice that they were terminating the agreement on the agenda and process to negotiate self-government.

The North Shore First Nations are not the only first nations community that has suffered this fate. This raises the question of whether or not North Shore First Nations and others in a similar predicament have any options beyond staying with their current Indian Act regime or opting into further assimilation.

In our estimation, the Liberal government preference is local first nation administration by devolution, instead of the implementation and recognition of first nations government by evolution. Historically, federal policy and its instrument, the Indian Act, have failed to acknowledge and respect the original relationship. The current reality is that there has been no substantial change in the policies for the last 125 years.

.1230

Thank you very much. Meegwetch.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Chief Tetahtegoose.

Now we'll proceed to questions from members. Mr. Bachand.

[Translation]

Mr. Bachand (Saint-Jean): First of all, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to bring to your attention the fact that one of the two official languages is not properly taken into consideration this morning. There is no simultaneous interpretation of the presentations made by the witnesses. I hope we are going to be able to correct this as soon as possible.

The Chairman: Yes, Mr. Bachand, we are going to correct this as well as all the other problems we had this morning. This is not acceptable. I understand your point of view and I share your concern.

Mr. Bachand: Thank you, Chief, for your presentation. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Minister Irwin comes from your part of the country, right? I'd like to know if his officials have consulted with you directly since the bill has been tabled.

You told us that all negotiations regarding self-government have been terminated in your area. Do you think there is a connection between this situation and the legislation the minister is trying to push through? It's much easier for the minister to try and leave his mark by amending the Indian Act rather than by taking much more positive, but a bit more demanding, initiatives such as negotiating self-government agreements.

So, the minister has taken the easy way out by modifying all this through Bill C-79. You were hardly consulted. According to my notes, here, a lot of communities, 550 of them, have not been consulted. I suppose yours is among them.

Do you agree that the minister is taking the easy way out by amending the Indian Act rather than tackling fundamental issues such as self-government? He terminated all negotiations on this matter with the tribes who live in this part of the country.

[English]

The Chairman: Before you respond, I will make a comment as chair of the committee. I made a commitment that I would allow all comments to be made. I will note, though, that the question has nothing to do with the bill we have in front of us. But I will allow the question and I won't interrupt in the future.

I want it on the record that I will allow it. It's your forty-minute block. But when we come to clause-by-clause the committee will be aware that things that are out of order will not be accepted.

Excuse me for interrupting. Please respond if you wish.

Mr. Roger Jones (North Shore Tribal Council): Perhaps I can respond to the questions as they were presented. My name is Roger Jones. I work for the North Shore Tribal Council.

As I understand it, there were generally three inquiries pursuant to Mr. Bachand's observations. First of all, yes, Minister Irwin is from this area generally. He's a member from Sault Ste. Marie, and I believe at least two of the first nations which are members of the North Shore Tribal Council are within his riding. The North Shore First Nations in general consider themselves neighbours of Minister Irwin.

Secondly, there was a question about whether or not there had been any contact from the minister's officials about these Indian Act amendments since they were first introduced. One of the things we noted in the minister's presentation to this committee last week was that he stated that in every part of the country he heard that first nations people wanted changes to the Indian Act. The North Shore Tribal Council does not recall bringing to the attention of the minister issues related to the Indian Act at any time since his appointment, and to the best of my knowledge there has been no contact between the minister's officials and the North Shore Tribal Council on Bill C-79. This is really the first instance in which the North Shore Tribal Council is putting its position on Bill C-79 on record, and as Chief Tetahtegoose has indicated, that position does not support this initiative at all.

.1235

Now with respect to the issue of the self-government initiative that the North Shore Tribunal Council was involved in, that commenced back in 1991. As you can appreciate, it was commenced during the term of the Conservative government, and it was continued on by Minister Irwin and the department until December 16, when they served their notice to terminate the self-government negotiations.

Naturally, the North Shore Tribunal Council was quite taken aback by this development because the tribunal council believed that negotiating self-government was the future for the relationship between the North Shore First Nations and Canada.

The North Shore Tribal Council made every effort to persuade the minister and his officials to change his position about terminating the self-government negotiations, but that was to no avail at this point. It's rather unfortunate that this is the situation as it is.

The Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Murphy.

Mr. Murphy: Thank you, Chief, for your remarks.

I want to try to get specific with regard to Bill C-79. You mentioned that this document is inconsistent with your wanting to achieve self-government. I would ask you specifically if you could tell me where self-government is being hindered in this particular bill.

The other thing you talked about was assimilation. Could you also tell me where assimilation is enhanced as a result of this bill? You said the thing was more paternalistic. As I read it, I find it less paternalistic. We can differ, but can you tell me where you see this thing as being more paternalistic?

My last question is specifically about the fiduciary responsibilities. You say that this bill somehow or other undermines the federal government's fiduciary responsibility.

If I might, the last one would be this: in your view, does this bill affect treaty or aboriginal rights? Specifically, does Bill C-79 affect treaty or aboriginal rights?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Jones: As I understand it, there were at least four questions put forth by the member of the committee. I'll start with the first one, which is where self-government is being hindered by Bill C-79.

I believe Chief Tetahtegoose had stated earlier in his presentation that the government has a preoccupation with the Indian Act. At this point, we believe this to be at the expense of developments in relation to negotiating self-government across the country. More importantly, there's also this preoccupation on the part of the government to use section 91(24) of the Constitution Act of 1867 to deal with first nations people.

The history with respect to section 91(24) is a negative history for aboriginal people. Chief Harvey Tetahtegoose pointed out in his presentation that the Government of Canada seems to think that section 91(24) is available for use to deal with Indians at liberty.

So far, the principal usage for section 91(24) in dealing with the Indian people has been through the Indian Act. By the minister's own admission, the Indian Act is a paternalistic framework in terms of dealing with first nations people. This is very important in terms of the Supreme Court of Canada's perspective on how the federal government treats aboriginal people.

.1240

If the Supreme Court of Canada believes the Government of Canada can legislate at will with respect to its relationship concerning first nations people, then I think that's sending the wrong signal, to the point where the Supreme Court of Canada might think the Government of Canada believes it can dictate all of the terms of the relationship between first nations and Canada, and can also dictate the degree to which first nations people can be self-governing. That would simply be the wrong message.

Chief Tetahtegoose pointed out in his presentation that this seems to be the situation to south of us, in the United States. Congress believes - and the United States Supreme Court now believes this - that it has complete authority to deal with first nations people south of the border. Given that the federal government has this legislative authority pursuant to section 91(24), I think it has to be very careful in how it exercises that authority in the long run, at least in terms of the optics of the Supreme Court of Canada.

Secondly, there was a question with respect to paternalism. Where is it more paternalistic? In his presentation, I believe Chief Tetahtegoose pointed out that there are features of the proposed amendments in this legislation that continue the old system for the most part. First of all, when you think about the changes that the minister is proposing, the changes are ones that are not fundamental, at least in terms of the real control and domination that the federal government exercises over aboriginal people. The minister and the federal government can impose elective systems on first nations. The minister has the authority to disallow by-law-making authority on the part of first nations councils. These changes do not touch on those fundamental issues, therefore there isn't any attempt on the part of the government to eradicate the most paternalistic elements of the legislation. Those paternalistic features therefore continue on.

On his part, there is also the introduction of this desire to concentrate more power in the hands of the Minister of Indian Affairs, power that normally is exercised by the cabinet, at least within the present Indian Act framework. The Minister of Indian Affairs desires that he should have that power, and we believe that to be an example of more paternalism being introduced into the Indian Act.

There was also an issue related to the fiduciary relationship. In terms of the presentation that was done earlier about fiduciary issues, I think Chief Tetahtegoose was trying to point out that the fiduciary relationship is not restricted to the executive branches of the government and first nations peoples. There is this misconception that the fiduciary relationship only extends to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Department of Indian Affairs personnel. Rather, what the Supreme Court of Canada seems to have said is that the fiduciary relationship also extends to the House of Commons because the House of Commons exercises constitutional authority pursuant to section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867. The House therefore is also responsible for acting in a fiduciary manner with respect to first nations. That's what Chief Tetahtegoose was trying to impress upon the members of this committee and the other members of the House of Commons. They are expected to act in a fiduciary manner when dealing with this important legislation and not simply take the Liberal government agenda into account. There are other considerations to which members ought to apply themselves.

.1245

The Chairman: Excuse me, before we go on. There are only about seven minutes left, so please be brief.

Also, I'd like you to share with us, for the record - and I asked this question of Chief Tetahtegoose - whether Mr. Jones is mandated by the band council to be a spokesperson. Or is he speaking for himself? We need this for the record, Chief.

Chief Tetahtegoose: Yes, Mr. Jones is mandated by the North Shore Tribal Council to speak on our behalf.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Please carry on.

Mr. Jones: An issue was brought up with respect to whether or not Bill C-79 affects treaty and aboriginal rights. Again, I believe that the presentation made by Chief Harvey Tetahtegoose addresses the issue of the potential negative effect that Bill C-79 has on treaty and aboriginal rights.

Bill C-79 proposes to change things in terms of how aboriginal societies are organized. It proposes to introduce a corporate structure into first nations communities by making bands into corporations. It proposes to deal with the issue of individual property allotments. It also wants to deal with issues relating to intestacy, whereby it wants to establish rules concerning who will benefit from intestacy.

The North Shore Tribal Council believes all of those matters to be areas in which first nations communities themselves ought to be making laws in terms of real inherent authority.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

I think Mr. Murphy's question has been answered. We have another question fromMr. Bachand.

[Translation]

Mr. Bachand: Mr. Jones, I believe you were the one who recently gave a legal opinion to the First Nations. I listened to Chief Mercredi when he came to make a presentation and there is something which is very important in the case law concerning aboriginal rights. It's the decision rendered in the Sparrow case whereby the court said that legislation passed by the House of Commons should be very open and generous towards First Nations.

Do you think that Bill C-79, which we are now considering, runs counter to the decision rendered in the Sparrow case, according to which we are not generous enough towards aboriginal people. If I were a member of a First Nation and if I wanted to fight Bill C-79, would you recommend that I use the Sparrow case to do so?

[English]

The Chairman: Please respond within four minutes.

Mr. Jones: I think there were two issues that were addressed by the Supreme Court of Canada that touch on this legislative initiative. First, it's suggested that any time the federal government wants to legislate or to make policy with respect to first nations people or to aboriginal people in general, it should consult extensively with first nations people or aboriginal people in general. Secondly, the Supreme Court of Canada stated that law-making or policy-making on the part of the federal government should be done with respect to avoiding infringement of treaty and aboriginal rights. The court stated that the federal government ought to ensure that is not the case.

.1250

In both instances, we believe Bill C-79 fails the standard. We don't believe there has been adequate consultation, and the fact that this committee only extends the North Shore Tribal Council forty minutes to address the issue is, in itself, indicative of the shortcomings of the process.

As for the second issue - that of whether or not treaty and aboriginal rights are affected - certainly the federal government has not asked the North Shore Tribal Council whether they believe their rights are being affected. If they did, the North Shore Tribal Council would tell them.

In general, and in response to your question, the Sparrow case and the test that was described by the court may in fact provide a remedy for first nations to challenge this legislation if it in fact proceeds to the next levels of the legislative process.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Murphy, a short question.

Mr. Murphy: Mr. Jones, I just want to try to interpret what I heard in your remarks regarding my questions. I believe I heard that there are a lot of issues with regard to self-government and a paternalistic act, etc., but I think your answers are all outside of this particular bill. In fact, if I heard you correctly, you said Bill C-79 does not fundamentally deal with the real issues with regard to the relationship between the minister and the government. I think that's quite different from trying to say that the act itself subscribes things taking away from self-government, that it's more paternalistic. I think all of those things are there, but I don't think they're within this act. In your own words, that is not really fundamental to the real issues with regard to the relationship.

Mr. Jones: That would be the wrong interpretation of what I stated earlier. What I stated earlier was that the changes the minister talks about in terms of a relationship, as he sees them... In his statements to chiefs across the country, he's stated before that what he desires to do by way of these amendments is to eradicate the most paternalistic elements of the Indian Act. What I've said is that the minister is in fact not even touching the most paternalistic aspects of a relationship whereby the federal government dictates to first nations how they govern themselves, whether or not they can have laws, and how they generally can live their lives on a daily basis.

If the minister really wanted to eradicate the most fundamental parts of the Indian Act, I think one of the things that would have to happen is the elimination of a Minister of Indian Affairs, perhaps along with the elimination of Department of Indian Affairs, at least within its present mandate, which is to control aboriginal people. If he really is convinced about eliminating paternalism, I think he has to undertake a fresh start to do that. Tinkering with the Indian Act is not going to eliminate the paternalism that exists in the system as we know it.

The Chairman: Thank you.

This completes this portion of our hearing. Chief Tetahtegoose and Mr. Roger Jones, I want to thank you very much for your presentation.

If he is there, we now invite Chief Bruce Ashawasegai, from the Henvey Inlet First Nation. Can anyone in Sudbury indicate to us whether or not Chief Ashawasegai is there? He hung up?

A witness: When you said this completed it, it completed this portion of it, this presentation, right?

.1254

.1256

The Chairman: We're expecting to hear from Chief Bruce Ashawasegai, of the Henvey Inlet First Nation.

Can you hear me in Sudbury?

A voice: Yes.

The Chairman: Is Chief Ashawasegai there?

A voice: He called in and indicated that he won't be here.

The Chairman: Okay. That completes our session at Sudbury.

Is Chief Shirley Horn there?

A voice: No, she's not.

The Chairman: Is there anyone else there who wishes to make a presentation?

Chief Tetahtegoose: There's a member of our delegation who came in a bit late due to the fact that you started early.

The Chairman: Has another member of your delegation just appeared?

Chief Tetahtegoose: Yes. The start-up time was supposed to be at 12:50.

The Chairman: I see. And we chose to start early.

Can we allow them fifteen minutes?

Is that acceptable to you, Chief?

Chief Tetahtegoose: Yes. Chief Larry Boyer from the Mississagi has arrived.

The Chairman: Committee members, is this acceptable to you?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Chief Boyer, please proceed. We have fifteen minutes.

Chief Larry Boyer (North Shore Tribal Council): I'm a chief from one of the seven first nations of the North Shore Tribal Council.

I met with my band members last week, who are totally against any amendments to the Indian Act through Bill C-79. All my elders are telling me that we will not support this initiative and some of them sent me down here to express our concerns through you. They say that going ahead with the Indian Act amendments at this time is against our role and we will not support this.

And I must remind you that Mr. Ron Irwin's riding is in our area. We've had a meeting, and I've seen that he doesn't want to support us on any initiatives that we present to him, whether it be self-government, Indian Act amendments or whatever we raise with him. I feel that he has not been supporting us. Every meeting we go to he says he won't do this and he won't do that, but when we get home, he says he's going ahead with it anyway. So I don't know...I've been to a lot of chiefs' meetings. We've passed resolution after resolution saying we're not supporting this, and yet when we get home, he says he's going ahead anyway. It is just so frustrating for all of our seven first nations along the north shore. Every time we get some news from him, it's bad news.

.1300

We feel really left out of the process. Mr. Irwin should hear what we have to say and sit down and have a meeting with us. I would really appreciate it if we could have a meeting with Mr. Irwin to sit down and see if we can get some of these issues resolved.

Basically that's what I'm saying from my first nation. I support Chief Tetahtegoose in his presentation. I think that's the feeling of all seven nations of the North Shore Tribal Council.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you for your presentation.

I should note that if you wish a meeting with Minister Irwin, you will have to direct the request directly to him. The system here in Ottawa is that when a bill is referred to a committee by the House of Commons, that bill no longer belongs to the minister; it belongs to the House. At this point it belongs to the committee.

So anything having to do with the minister you'll have to arrange yourselves directly with him. Our job here is to assess the amendments in Bill C-79. We are recording the testimony that is directly related to the bill.

Are there questions from any of the members?

There are no questions, so I wish to thank you very much.

Is there anyone in that room in Sudbury who was scheduled to make a presentation but who has not been able to do it yet?

Chief Boyer: I don't see anyone present right now.

The Chairman: Thank you very much for your assistance. We say goodbye to Sudbury.

Chief Boyer: Thank you very much.

The Chairman: These hearings are suspended until 1:45, unless the witnesses appear beforehand, at which time we will reconvene.

.1303

.1551

The Chairman: I wish to apologize for the delay. We still do not have a member of the opposition, but we will proceed with the deliberations. Your testimony is being recorded, and it will be made available to members who are absent.

My name is Ray Bonin. I am the chairman of the committee. I have with me three Liberal members: Mr. Hubbard, Mr. Murphy and Mr. Calder.

We have allocated 40 minutes for the presentation. The time belongs to you. We are welcoming Chief Wellington Staats. As I say, the time is yours, but if you would allow some time after for questions, we would appreciate it. The total time we have together is forty minutes. Chief Staats, the floor is yours.

Chief Wellington Staats (Six Nations Council): Thank you. I may not take 40 minutes. My presentation here is not very long.

I'd like to say a good afternoon to you, Mr. Chairman, and to all the members of the committee who are sitting with you today. I'd also like to thank the committee for giving us this opportunity to address the committee on our concerns over the Indian Act Optional Modification Act, Bill C-79. I guess we received it on very short notice, which is why we really don't have a greatly detailed presentation here for you this afternoon.

The first notification that I received, even about the committee hearings, was from my own member of Parliament, Mr. Bob Speller. I received his notification on Tuesday, March 4, 1997. He informed me that the deadline for requesting a hearing was on Wednesday, March 5. So the presentation we have here today does not take into account too much detail, although there are some specifics that we could probably try to help clarify if it's necessary.

It's also the reason that you're only hearing from probably 12 or 14 of the Indian chiefs across Ontario. I had a telephone call this morning from another two who didn't even know the hearings were going on. I think the rush of trying to put everything into perspective here is why there are not more of us meeting with you here today.

Sometime back in December, we met with a number of you on Parliament Hill. We were told that there would be adequate time to voice our concerns once the standing committee had established their hearing process. Now that the process has been established, it's quite apparent that your scheduling is totally inappropriate and certainly inadequate to allow the first nations to respond to the amendments as we certainly should respond to them.

.1555

I would also like to address the process of consultation leading up to the drafting of the bill. The Minister of Indian Affairs initially announced that there would only be nine or ten minor changes to the Indian Act, and we got information on this on September 19, 1996. He also indicated that these changes would really not have any substantive effect on first nations, as they were only administrative changes.

We were against any changes to the Indian Act at that particular time. However, as we were preparing to look at these initial changes, the minister then announced that there would be more changes, and over the next period of time, up until Christmas and I dare say even up until the drafting of the act, changes were made, right up until the night before it was presented to cabinet for ratification. So there really was no time for us to react to the changes, because for all intents and purposes, we didn't really know what they were changing. It's very difficult to react when you don't know.

Up until this time, there are approximately 60 changes being made to the act. We at Six Nations feel this is far more than just an administrative change or some minor changes to the Indian Act. When you make 60 changes to the act, some of them certainly affect us. We understand they were being constantly redrafted, right up until the presentation was made in the House of Commons.

I also want to express my disappointment in the process of consultation undertaken by the minister over the course of the past year.

The minister has asserted that there has been more than adequate consultation with first nations for the last four years and that Bill C-79 merely reflects the desire of first nations themselves to change the Indian Act. I agree with that; I agree that we have been saying for a number of years that we need some changes to the Indian Act. But certainly the changes that are made in this particular bill, Bill C-79, don't meet the requirements of Six Nations. Not only that, but they apparently preclude us from making any further changes to either the new act or the old act, because this is an opting-in process. You either take all of Bill C-79 or you stay with the old act.

Some of the things in Bill C-79 I admit are good. There needed to be changes. Certainly some of them we would like to see changed to our benefit, but if we do that, then we have to opt into the whole process of changes within Bill C-79, and that's where we are having some real problems with what's going on today.

The Assembly of First Nations has indicated that the majority of first nations have rejected Bill C-79. I was at the meeting, by the way, that was held in Winnipeg. I would say at least 400 of the chiefs were there, and all of them rejected changes to the Indian Act. The minister was there also.

It's also interesting to note that although the minister refers to a number of committees and reports commenting on the Indian Act and first nations and asserts this as the basis for his accuracy in knowing what the desires of first nations are, he fails to recognize what the government's latest report states about the Indian Act.

The most extensive report ever done by the federal government on first nations, covering the history of relations between the first nations and Canada since before Confederation, is the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples report. The RCAP made extensive consultations with first nations communities and organizations over a five-year period. They heard from first nations and concerned parties directly, and their findings and recommendations on how to deal with first nations are all contained in their report.

One of those recommendations stated that first nations did not want the federal government tinkering with the Indian Act. The RCAP recommended instead that it would be more productive if the federal government put their time and effort into negotiating self-government agreements with first nations. However, Minister Irwin fails to mention this recommendation in his speech or to heed the advice of the royal commission - advice, by the way, that the federal government paid $68 million for, advice they did not even use or look at before the amending of this particular act.

.1600

This is a complete waste of taxpayers' money and and leaves the Liberals' red book promise unfulfilled. They promised to recognize first nations' inherent right to self-government.

The minister is ignoring the RCAP report, the latest consultations with first nations. The minister also fails to mention that AFN showed that a majority of first nations is rejecting Bill C-79.

The minister mentions that bills such as Bill C-31 have been optional in the past. However, what the minister called an ``optional act'' is still negatively impacting on the Six Nations of the Grand River and will continue to have impacts for the next ten years. And this is despite the promise of the then Minister of Indian Affairs to the Six Nations that they would be no worse off with the passage of Bill C-31. In fact, with the influx of new members caused by Bill C-31, we have seen a decline in programs and services to our community members. Federal funding has failed to keep pace with the number of members we have had to provide services for with the returning of Bill C-31 people. Contrary to what Minister Irwin suspects, we have no option but to accept all new members recognized by Bill C-31.

This tinkering with the Indian Act, which RCAP recommended against, only serves to treat bands like municipalities instead of first nations with an inherent right to self-government, supposedly as recognized in the Liberals' red book. Instead of recognizing that right as promised, the Liberals, through Bill C-79, are treating first nations more like municipalities. This act will see some first nations turn into corporations. This is not the inherent right to self-government but a continuation of the assimilation policy, a policy developed way back in 1969. Legislation like Bill C-79 only tends to divide our people and treat them as if they had no constitutionally recognized rights, as if they were the same as people in non-native municipalities. This treatment of non-consent by first nations brings no honour to us or to the problem.

In closing, I would like to say to the committee that if changes are to be made in the relationship between our two peoples, let us work on this together through a respectful mutually beneficial process that will bring honour to the crown and respect for our constitutionally recognized aboriginal rights to us.

At this time, in closing, I would just like to say to the committee that if changes are to be made, thank you for your time and for your consideration in this matter.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Chief.

I see that you have a colleague with you. Will the person with you be presenting?

Chief Staats: No. I'm the only speaker.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Let me mention that your MP, Bob Speller, probably contacted you because very early in the process I sent a memo from the committee to all MPs from all sides of the House, asking them to advise their aboriginal communities. In addition to that, there were press releases and memos sent to all chiefs over two weeks. I just want you to know that those things were done.

With respect to the parts of the bill you like and the parts you dislike, it would be beneficial to committee members to hear from you. This bill belongs to the committee right now, and our job is to send it back the way it is or amend it. And the reason we're going through this process is to hear from you specifically on this bill that we have, Bill C-79, and to hear amendments. So far today we haven't heard too much about Bill C-79.

I will proceed to questions from committee members. If you wish to integrate your wishes for amendments, do that in your answers. I will also allow you time for closing remarks if that's acceptable to you.

Mr. Murphy.

Mr. Murphy: Thank you, Chief, for your presentation.

Early in your presentation you indicated that Bill C-79 doesn't meet the needs of the Six Nations. Let me ask you to help me understand what needs are missing here. What would you have liked to have seen? Obviously, there are some things about the bill that you like as well, and I'd be interested to hear those; however, I wanted to know - and maybe more so - why the bill doesn't meet Six Nations' needs.

.1605

Chief Staats: As I say, I can only do this superficially because we have not really had anything in-depth. One of the problems with the bill altogether is simply that we have not had time to look at how it really does affect us.

The few things that we can see plainly enough in the bill and can point out would include the non-derogation clause, which begins right off the top of the bill. This clause is intended to allay fears about the potential impact of the proposed legislation on aboriginal and treaty rights. The wording of the clause makes it applicable to the Indian Act and not to the legislation itself. While the Minister of Indian Affairs at the present time may have good relations with us, and good cause to want to put this through, we're not too sure that other ministers following him will have the same consideration for Indian people that he has. So it really concerns us when the bill does not specify certain things.

Clause 8 of the bill gives bands the capacity of natural persons and introduces the concept of ``corporate personality''. It does not say that the natural person is a status Indian. It just says ``natural person.'' What effect does this have on the tax exemption of Indian people? What effect will it have in the future if it doesn't specifically point out that it is a status Indian we're talking about here, rather than a non-status Indian?

Those are two of the points, and there are a number of other ones I could go through.

Mr. Murphy: Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Calder.

Mr. Calder (Wellington - Grey - Dufferin - Simcoe): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chief Staats, I'll make a couple of comments here, and I would like your response.

In 1985 Bill C-31 was passed. At that point in time, it restored Indian status to well over 100,000 people and basically gave the bands control over their membership. You're now saying that we're taking that control away.

The other aspect of it is that you said it would make the bands into corporations. Quite frankly, this is granting legal status and capacity to a band, so the statement you're making there is legally incorrect.

I'd like your comments on both of those.

Chief Staats: On the one about Bill C-31, what I said was that the government of the day made a promise to us, to Six Nations - and this is actually in written form. In fact, as far as I know, he stood up in the House and said that any Indians who took over Bill C-31 would not be any worse off than they were. The government said it would give us the right to decide who our membership was provided that we had 51% of the eligible electors, which is almost impossible to get when you have a voting process such as ours - and that's not the people who voted, but the eligible electors.

As everybody knows, on our particular reserve, the Six Nations Reserve - it's the largest in Canada - we have some 18,000 registered band members, and they are all over the world. We also have two factions on our reserve: the Confederacy Council is still there, and the elected Six Nations Council is still there. The Confederacy Council does not believe in voting, so those stipulations made it impossible for Six Nations to generate its own band rules and regulations covering who would become a member of the band. We went before the standing committee of the day on that particular issue and told them that, but, as was pointed out before, it still went through.

.1610

On your second question, the legal effect of the clause is minimal, given the empty-box perspective of the federal government. What they're saying here is that we can become a ``natural person''. If they included the word ``Indian person'', it would probably solve our difficulty without any problem, because then it would refer back to the non-tax status, which means the personal property of an Indian is exempt from tax.

I hope that answers your questions.

Mr. Calder: Kind of. Actually, I'd like your comments.

Such a change would enable a first nation, if it chooses, to better conduct its business and administrative affairs. It actually provides them with the same legal status as other business entities. What's your comment on that?

Chief Staats: I think you're suggesting that Indian bands would become legal entities, corporations or whatever that is. I think Indian bands have an inherent right to self-government, which is what we're arguing here. We're not Canadian legal entities or whatever else you want to say this bill would put forward to us. What we're saying is that we have always had an inherent right to self-government, and we'd like to exercise that right in some kind of negotiation with the government other than what it's proposing here.

The Chairman: Mr. Hubbard.

Mr. Hubbard: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good afternoon, Chief.

For a student of Canadian history, we probably have more knowledge of the Six Nations than we do of most of the other nations within the 600 groups we deal with.

I'd like to have your comments - you mentioned you have 18,000 members - on how many of your members live off reserve. Also, what are your comments on the methods of the selection of chiefs that would be acceptable to your people?

We have two acts, the original act and the new changes. Both speak of elections by democratic vote by a certain number of years. But in terms of your perspective, how would you suggest to our committee that we should look at the selection of chiefs in terms of who should participate and basically how it should be done?

Chief Staats: We have 18,000 registered band members. Approximately 10,000 reside on reserve, while approximately 9,000 reside off reserve. We would have a larger influx of people living on reserve if we had the housing and infrastructure to take care of them. As we build this, more of them move back.

We don't know what the ramifications are yet of Bill C-31. We don't know how many more may be looking to regain their status with Six Nations. But that answers your question as to how many we have on and off reserve.

In our system right now, the elected band council system is the one that's recognized by the government, and it's the governing body of the reserve. It runs for a three-year term. The chief is elected by a number of the people within the community.

Our reserve is split into six electoral districts. There are two members of council for each electoral district, making twelve council members.

There is one chief elected by the whole of the reserve itself, who is now me. Every three years, of course, I have to go before the people to stand for re-election and decide if I'm going to be able to lead the reserve again.

There is no other system within the government system that I can see that can take the place of that right now.

.1615

We have another faction, as I said; the Confederacy Council is also active on our reserve from time to time, but it is not an elected council. It is appointed from clan mothers and from all the other things that would take me an awfully long time to explain right here.

Mr. Hubbard: For this committee, Chief, you would suggest that your method is most acceptable for your people - the three years and the organization you've described?

Chief Staats: Yes, it seems to be quite acceptable to the people right now. We seem to be getting along quite well with this type of system, and we have of course for the last 70 years, approximately.

Mr. Hubbard: Thank you.

The Chairman: Are there any other questions from any members?

There being none, do you wish to make closing remarks, Chief?

Chief Staats: I thank you all for having us here. We did what we could with our brief in such a short period of time, and of course you'll be getting a copy of it as quickly as possible. Thank you very much.

The Chairman: We appreciate that and we wish to thank you very much. We also wish to apologize for the delay. We look forward to receiving your brief. Thank you.

We now invite, from the Association of Iroquois and Allied Indians, William Tooshkenig, executive director.

Is there a facilitator in the room in Toronto? We wish to know if Chief Tooshkenig is there.

A voice: No, he's not, and I haven't heard from him.

The Chairman: Do you know if Gordon Peters from the Chiefs of Ontario is there?

A voice: I'm sorry to say no.

The Chairman: He's not due to be there until 4:50, so we'll start running the clock and we'll wait for Chief Tooshkenig.

Thank you.

.1618

.1630

The Chairman: We will resume the hearing procedures.

I wish to welcome Regional Chief Gordon B. Peters, who is with us from the Chiefs of Ontario.

Chief Peters, I see that you have a colleague with you. I'd like to ask you if your colleague will be presenting along with you, and if so, would you name him for us, please?

Chief Gordon B. Peters (Regional Chief (Ontario), Assembly of First Nations): My colleague's name name is Richard Powless. He is my executive assistant. I have invited him to participate in the question and answer period that may follow this and have asked him to contribute anything he wishes to this discussion.

The Chairman: You're both welcome. Thank you for being here and for being early.

Forty minutes has been allocated for us to be together. The time belongs to you, but we would appreciate it if you would allow some time for members to ask questions.

My name is Ray Bonin. I am chair of the committee, and I am accompanied by Mr. Asselin, from the Bloc Québécois, and Mr. Calder, Mr. Murphy, and Mr. Hubbard from the Liberal Party. I understand Mr. Duncan will be with us in a few seconds.

Please make your presentation.

Chief Peters: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I come here today not specifically to speak about the substance of the draft legislation as much as to speak about the process and the principles behind the legislation, and also, I think, to be able to use some examples from our past that will allow us to talk to you about why we are opposing this legislation.

Some fundamental issues surround consultation and the relationship that results from consultation. During the course of a lobbying campaign that the chiefs of Ontario were involved with, we made it clear to a number of MPs that we were not involved in the consultative process. We had understood from the assembly that there was an offer by the minister to the assembly to participate in the drafting of these particular amendments, and it was the position of the assembly that they would not get involved in drafting any amendments as part of a process to amend the Indian Act.

I also have to comment on the part we were involved with, because it was very clear from the outset that we were talking about a few minor amendments to clean up some of the areas of the minister's discretion along with a few minor amendments to take out the offensive parts of the act, and it seems that those particular sections to be amended have been growing since then.

I know that from the very beginning a number of people indicated that they could look at the minor amendments to see if there was something that could possibly be done in that particular area to help clean up the act. But the more we got into substantive change, the more I was given a mandate to be able to oppose what was going on. I didn't oppose this simply on the basis of the fact that I didn't want to be able to be involved in the drafting exercise. In relation to the substance of the draft, I was opposing it for some reasons that are fundamentally different from those of some people.

For a long time we have been asking for fundamental changes in the relationship we have with Canada so that the relationship could be implemented. Over the course of the 1980s and the early 1990s in the constitutional process, I think some of the building blocks and some of the trials we went through in trying to find ways to be able to accommodate ourselves... When the Liberal government came into power they introduced the red book, which said there was a whole series of things they were going to do that were not constitutional things, and they said they were going to do things better so that Indian people could have the opportunity to be partners in a process that will help determine their own destiny.

.1635

I understand it's from these principles that we were supposed to work collectively to try to do things that we thought were in our best interests and not what people thought were in our best interests. We look at this kind of exercise today as one that is not particularly in our best interest in the way we would like to proceed.

Many people have asked us why we don't want to amend the Indian Act. For us, it comes down to a very simple determination. One, we don't wish to amend the Indian Act. We think there are all kinds of ways of being able to do things on a positive basis instead of continually trying to amend the negative - to try to create something positive out of the negative. We think it would be much easier if the government were to work with us and do something around the treaties, do something in a positive way that reflected a commitment to that kind of fundamental change.

We think something can be done with the inherent right policy to restructure it to talk about justiciable powers for first nations communities instead of conditional powers that rest upon the federal and provincial governments.

We also think there is plenty of room for us to be able to look at the litigation policy of Canada and to be able to change that in a way such that when we do get into a legal situation, we're not at the point where politicians are saying one thing on one side - that this is the way they'd like to proceed - and then lawyers for the crown are proceeding in court saying that we don't have any rights, and that if we do have rights they've been extinguished, and any of those rights we do have ultimately will be decided by the federal and provincial governments.

Those are fundamental areas we would like to be able to talk about, as proposed changes that we have.

We take a political stance on these amendments and say that if we are going to look at the way we are going to move into the future, then we should realistically look at a blueprint that sets out the future.

Whether or not people agree or disagree with the royal commission, at least it has put forward a plan for the next 20 years. The royal commission has set something out that says here is the way we think change has to be created by the politicians in order for there to be a change in the social conditions, in order for there to be a change in the economic conditions, in order for there to be a change in the political conditions of the indigenous people of Canada.

With that plan that's laid out I think there is an opportunity now for the federal government to become engaged in another process that would help us to be able to start identifying some of those things that we could move on within that plan, so that there could be some kind of negotiated process for us to be able to decide what we would like to be able to advance, and to see how those things could be accommodated.

The royal commission speaks very clearly to the issue of the Indian Act, saying that the Indian Act shouldn't be tinkered with. It should be something that should be left there, and these new relationships and processes should be able to create something that will supersede the Indian Act, and that whole act can be done away with.

So we take that premise set out by the royal commission as being one we can support and one we will advocate as the place of being able to deal with the kinds of things we would like to be able to advance. We want to establish a true partnership that reflects our ability to make decisions in the same process.

What we have seen today is that the minister has now put forward this modified act so that anybody who wants to be outside, within the old act, can stay there, and anybody who wants to opt into the new act can do that as well.

We have seen those things in front of us before, historically. We know that what happens to us is that any time there's something there the government wants us to be able to utilize, they simply make this other part not applicable in the solutions that will be found to future problems we will face.

.1640

I can point to the second tribal council process that's in place right now. In the first one the rug was pulled out from the communities. The second one stated that if you don't want to join up with the tribal council, you don't have to worry about services, you'll still get those same services. That didn't last very long. For those communities that didn't participate, they found out very quickly that those services weren't available in the same manner as they had received them before, and they were forced to move toward the tribal council system that was put in place.

We think the same thing will happen with this modified process that is going on right now in the Indian Act. If the federal government decides to unilaterally go ahead and put this modified bill into place, what is required is that those people who wish to keep working within the current regime would have to be guaranteed that they will not be forced into this other process as solutions are required to resolve issues in the future.

At this time we also need to be very clear in terms of how we see the future unwinding in our discussion of some of these issues that are related to the red book. The committee is aware that not too long ago the national chief, with a number of people who had drafted the aboriginal portion of the red book, in fact burnt those documents and said there was no commitment by the federal government to be able to live up to those standards they were putting in place.

For us today, we want to be able to engage in a discussion about how this system is going to work, how we're going to find positive ways to be able to move into the future together, and how we can get over some of the hurdles that currently exist right now that don't get resolved by either the current act or the modified bill. In particular, we want to discuss issues around the economics in our communities and outside of our communities, because certainly these provisions still maintain us right now in the community. They don't address the treaty issues and they don't address the fact that we have access to resources via those treaties outside of our reserve land at this point in time.

So that's the kinds of discussions we think are necessary for us to move ahead right now. As I said before, we're not interested in getting into a clause-by-clause debate of those particular initiatives. We know there are a lot of other people out there who are not interested in being able to do that.

The instructional workshops that were run by the department to try to determine what people's views were didn't take off. Many of those people who came to those particular sessions - and the numbers were small - simply reiterated their views that they didn't wish to participate in that process, and they left. So there hasn't been an overwhelming support for these initiatives. We wonder why the government would move ahead with these initiatives when they're not supported by the very people they affect, and that's us. If we don't support it, why would government continue to move on a path where they know those things are not acceptable for us to deal with?

So those questions we ask. I would only say at this point that I have correspondence here in front of me where, after the royal commission was out, I did write to the Prime Minister and asked for a response on some concrete and practical results in a given timeframe that could be accomplished other than amending the Indian Act. Some of those were the ones I talked about.

I'll table that for the committee, as I don't know if the committee has it or not. I tried to tell all the members of Parliament previously, so I'll leave it here today as a reminder that back in November 1996 we were trying to get people to recognize the fact that we didn't want the amendments to go ahead, or the modified bill, and what we were searching for was something positive as a means of building into the future, instead of trying to correct the negative issues and have the negative act remain in place, even after modifications took place.

.1645

So that's where we're at right now within this region. I won't say to you that 100% of the people are opposed to the modification act, but I know from the assemblies I have visited and the instructions I've been given that the overwhelming majority of people are not in favour of what's being currently done by the federal government.

I thank you for the opportunity to give you my point of view. I am willing to answer any questions that may come forward and to engage in any kind of dialogue you desire.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Chief Peters.

Before I entertain questions from committee members, I will repeat what I said this morning.

As for the information that you will table and that we are receiving and the testimony that is being shared with us, I have made a decision to allow everything to stand, but when we do go into deliberations with clause-by-clause, anything that does not pertain to the actual Bill C-79 will not be entertained. I want everyone to be aware of this, because as I said earlier, much of the testimony does not relate to Bill C-79.

We have another few days of witnesses. I want it clear that although we're allowing everything... It's your time, as I say, and I'll allow you to use it in any way you wish, but what does not pertain to the bill will not be considered by the committee. I just want that to be clear.

If you wish to add within your answers some direction for amendments, it certainly would be a good opportunity for you to do that. I will allow you some time at the end for closing remarks, if you wish to add some more.

We'll go to questions now. Mr. Duncan.

Mr. Duncan: Thank you very much.

Like you, I'm not really very interested in clause-by-clause debate on the bill, but as the chair just indicated, the reality is that's probably where we're going to end up. So from a - call it what you like - damage control standpoint, do you have a priority list of concerns? Do you somehow have the clauses priorized in terms of which ones are of the most concern to you? For the two, three, or four that are of the most concern, can you give us a brief rationale as to why?

Chief Peters: Thank you for your question.

I am fully aware that my comments that pertain to the process and the recommendations I put forward to the Prime Minister will not be used in the context of the clause-by-clause situation that you speak of. I will not compromise my view that this act should not proceed, and I will not participate in a clause-by-clause process that would jeopardize my position or allow myself to be brought into a discussion that I don't condone.

So I'll ask you, as a committee member, to withdraw the modified act. Let's start our discussion on building something that's positive for first nations communities.

Mr. Duncan: That's been my position, that this act doesn't have a starting point, but I thought I would ask the question. I fully respect your answer.

The Chairman: Mr. Asselin.

.1650

[Translation]

Mr. Asselin (Charlevoix): My name is Gérard Asselin and I am the member of Parliament for the Charlevoix riding in Quebec. I represent the Bloc Québécois instead of the official Opposition critic in the House of Commons, Mr. Claude Bachand, who sends his greetings.

First, let me say that the Bloc Québécois is quite aware of your position. More than 542 aboriginal communities, out of approximately 610, contacted the Bloc Québécois to express their dissatisfaction with Bill C-79.

I was very surprised - but you just said the same thing - when I realized that very few of the promises made by the Liberals in the Red Book had been honoured by the government, the ministers and the present Prime Minister. What surprises me most is that aboriginal communities contributed to the development of the party platform, the Red Book, and that today, we end up with Bill C-79. The government is doing exactly the opposite of what you were prepared for, by proposing, through Bill C-79, another reform of the legislation concerning aboriginal people.

Do you feel that, as an aboriginal community, you're being consulted? Are you being given enough time to confer with your people or, rather, do you think that the government is doing something which is quite different from what it promised during the 1993 electoral campaign?

[English]

Chief Peters: We feel very strongly right now that with the majority of people opposed to this particular modified act, our wishes are not being listened to. In the beginning, when we started this process, we made it very clear to the Minister of Indian Affairs that we were not consulted. We believe that there are standards of consultation that have to be adhered to. We don't feel that writing letters to the communities and asking for a response is consultation.

I think that at this stage right now, there have been a select few people who were involved in writing the red book. Many people feel that the red book commitments that were laid out for aboriginal people in fact have a very poor track record of being implemented. At this stage right now, it's our view that because we haven't been consulted, because we haven't been a part of this particular initiative, and because we're using our voice to say no, these initiatives shouldn't proceed at this point in time.

[Translation]

Mr. Asselin: The 542 aboriginal communities are against Bill C-79. How are you going to express your dissatisfaction to the minister? You should do it very quickly, since we are going to have an election shortly.

I think that aboriginal communities should prove to the minister that he has not honoured the commitments and the promises made in the Red Book.

The Chairman: Before you answer, let me say that neither the question nor the comments have anything to do with Bill C-79. However, I will allow your answer to stand since you can use these40 minutes as you wish. It is clear that those comments have nothing to do with the matter at hand. However, you may continue.

.1655

[English]

Chief Peters: When this process started, we were told we would have an opportunity to come to the committee to be able to express our views on how we felt about the Indian Act Optional Modification Act that was put before us. When we were told that we had an opportunity to appear before this committee, we thought it was going to be a dialogue on the kinds of things that we have right now, about the inappropriateness of the action that is being taken, about the fact that we believe commitments were made to deal with the inherent rights of the governments of our first nations. We honestly felt that when we came to this particular committee we would have a dialogue that would ask us what could be done as an alternative if people did not wish to consider this, if so many people said that this doesn't work and they are opposed to it.

It's really unfortunate that we find ourselves in a situation in which time is running out right now in relation to this particular mandate. It appears that the Minister of Indian Affairs is going to try to ram this particular bill through whether Indian people want it or not. From what he has been saying to Indian leaders across the country, it seems to me that this may in fact be his swansong, the last accomplishment he is going to be able to achieve in relation to Indian people.

As far as we're concerned, in relation to trying to create a partnership with indigenous peoples within Canada, it's very clear that the report card on the red book contains failing grades when included with these kinds of processes regarding the Indian Act.

Mr. Richard Powless (Executive Assistant to Chief Gordon B. Peters, Chiefs of Ontario): Mr. Chairman, could I ask a question? Is not the process by which this committee is operating...? This may be on a point of order -

The Chairman: Excuse me, there are no points of order in a consultation. This is a public hearing. We're here to ask you to give input in order to try to influence the committee members to present amendments, and they will do so if you can so convince them. So far, we have had difficulty in focusing the testimony on the bill; that's fine, they're your forty minutes. The members, however, are hungry for information from you that would help them amend the bill.

We can't just say that we agree with you that the bill shouldn't go through, and then go home. We have a bill that has been assigned to us by the House of Commons of Canada. We have a job to do, and we're going to do it. But it would be a lot better for you and for us if we do it with your help.

Mr. Powless: Is not the process by which the consultation takes place part of the bill? Isn't the process by which it is introduced and brought through part of the bill?

The Chairman: The process is determined by the committee members. That has been done, and it's what we're going through now. You can therefore use up your time to talk about procedures, but I don't think it's becoming of you to question the procedures. It is becoming of any members.

We welcome your testimony in reference to the bill and proposed amendments, and your recommendations as to why members should or should not opt for any further amendments. This is what we are inviting you to present to us.

Mr. Powless: We're just trying to understand the process, Mr. Chairman. Are you telling us that if all the testimony that you heard recommended that you not go forward with this legislation, you would go forward regardless of getting that kind of input?

The Chairman: The committee will decide what it will do with the testimony once the public hearings are over, but we're not engaging in that debate. That debate will be held strictly and only by committee members.

I have a question from Mr. Asselin.

[Translation]

Mr. Asselin: On that particular point, the Chairman is quite right. The governing party has made some commitments in the Red Book and it is the Opposition's role to ensure that these commitments are honoured. Five hundred and forty two aboriginal communities said that they disagree; but what do they not agree on? This is something that should be said. I'd like the aboriginal communities to let the government know which modifications they can live with and I also would like you to have enough time to consult with your people.

.1700

[English]

Mr. Powless: The issue we're in disagreement about, I guess, is the question itself of... When Minister Irwin said that he offered a process to AFN, he offered a process once he had determined to proceed with Indian Act amendments. He didn't ask us what the best process was to implement our rights. He would have been told, if he'd asked that question, that the best process is the process that is jointly developed with first nations and is based on our treaty relationship and on our aboriginal and treaty rights.

No one except the minister is asking for this legislation. In fact, the majority of the amendments in this legislation came from his own bureaucracy. We're looking for processes along the lines of what's been recommended by the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, jointly developed processes whereby we can sit down and map out the future together instead of having an Indian agent administrator dictating to us again.

Many of our problems today result from how this government is operating in telling us what's best for us again. This is just another example of it.

The Chairman: What I'm saying is that those comments you make - they belong to you and you're entitled to them - should be directed to the minister. The minister does not control what goes on in this committee. This bill no longer belongs to the minister. It belongs to the House of Commons.

I heard your comments, but they're not being recorded because you should address them to the minister. It has nothing to do with the bill at this point. This bill belongs to the House of Commons now. The House of Commons has directed us to do a job and that's what we're trying to do. All the comments about the process, the red book... This is a multi-party committee and our obligation is to respond to the House.

Mr. Calder, please.

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

Welcome, Chief Peters.

I'm curious. When you gave your opening statement, you said there are offensive parts of the act. Do you believe the Indian Act should be scrapped?

Chief Peters: Once we are able to put in place the mechanisms to implement the treaties and once we are able to put in place the mechanisms to deal with the fiscal relationship and the access to resources, I believe the act should be scrapped.

With the Indian Act being modified, a lot of our people see that the Indian Act is going to be around for a long time. It's not our desire to have the act around for a long time. Our desire is to get on with trying to provide the most positive way of being able to acknowledge the fact we have rights, that we have land rights and economic rights, and that those rights need to be implemented in the best way.

Mr. Calder: Obviously, as we're moving forward on that, this is something that should not be done quickly. And you're saying to me that while we're in the process of doing it, we should retain the Indian Act.

Chief Peters: I think a lot of people will tell you the same thing, not only me. I certainly have advocated in the past for a lot of different kinds of mechanisms to be able to make change.

It appears right now that the only way change occurs in Indian territory is change that's being directed by the government itself, and then we're asked to comment on it and prioritize our concerns in regard to it. None of these things meet any of the needs we have to do the things we would like to be able to do in our communities.

If we're trying to get involved in the mainstream economy of this country, there's nothing in the amendments to the Indian Act that will allow us to be able to do those kinds of things. We will still continue to have poverty in our community. We will still have the economic disparity. We will still continue to be marginalized.

.1705

No matter what you change within this act right now, you're not going to change that situation at all. So we're asking people to get involved in other processes that will change those kinds of things, because this act certainly won't do it.

Mr. Calder: Well, that in itself, Chief Peters, is a misconception, because Bill C-79 is not an amendment to the Indian Act; it is actually separate legislation that modifies the application of the act. Basically the points that are within Bill C-79 right now are points we have taken to heart, having listened to the concerns of your bands as to a better way of applying the Indian Act. That's what Bill C-79 is trying to achieve.

Chief Peters: I don't know which bands asked you to modify the Indian Act with this new optional bill that you have presented right now, because it seems the vast majority of communities are opposed to you.

I said earlier in my comments that one of the ways of being able to implement things people don't want has always been to provide two streams. If you're in one stream, you're darn sure the government is going to treat you well. They're going to provide additional resources beyond the levels you would normally receive. So what the process will end up doing is driving people from the current act into a process the government wants to see happen.

Mr. Calder: I know the previous presenter, when he did his presentation, said there are a number of things within Bill C-79 that he likes. He also said there are a number of things that he doesn't like. So obviously some of the points we heard from the band we've hit bang-on, and it sounds as though there might be a few we missed at the same time. But generally speaking, the point I got from him was that with improvements like this, it might be a better application of the act.

Chief Peters: If our people were in control of putting forward the kinds of things they wanted to do and had the authority to be able to do that, then fine, I would think communities would get together and demonstrate to you clearly what needs to be done.

But right now, when there is no control by first nations, when somebody else controls the process, and when we have no say other than to be consulted in the process and give our comments on it, there is no way I, from my perspective and from the mandate I have, can be involved in that kind of debate on what's good and not good about the current modified optional bill you have in front of you.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Hubbard.

Mr. Hubbard: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chief, welcome to the committee. We're sorry you're not able to participate in a study of the proposed legislation. I'd like to ask a few brief questions on your perspective.

I don't think there's anyone in this room who doesn't acknowledge that the Indian Act of 1876 and the ones up to this date have been paternalistic, that they have protected the land and the Indian people in terms of outside forces that have acted against them over the years. But if we are to change that system of paternalism and work towards a new system of relationships, there has to be, as you say, consultation.

Getting back to the changes themselves, for example, we speak about control, and one of the methods of control is who appoints or selects the controlling groups? The two-year mandate that many bands have now seems to be quite unacceptable in terms of looking at changes and trying to make progress, because there's a constant state of elections and results from those elections. The new proposal is for a three-year period. Would you agree with a three-year period?

Secondly, who should be allowed to vote when elections are held? Should people off reserve be allowed to vote, or should only those who live within the group be allowed to select the chief and council?

Chief Peters: First of all, the original Indian Act and the changes that followed in the subsequent years, as you have mentioned, were paternalistic, and I don't see anything different in terms of the Indian Act with the modified optional legislation being proposed here. I don't think there is any control for first nations people in this process when it comes to being able to make decisions on what it is they want.

.1710

Secondly, if you're talking about a new relationship, the Indian Act doesn't create these kinds of relationships. There is still very much a paramountcy relationship on the part of the federal government in terms of overriding our communities at this stage, whether you change or modify this act or not. The only way you can change that relationship is by recognizing the validity of the treaties as international political and economic instruments that were put in place by our forefathers to guarantee that our people would continue to maintain their land, their resources, and way of life, and to guarantee that these wouldn't be destroyed by settler governments who have come into our territories.

Right now, the bands don't need the consent of the Indian Act to put in place their own system of governance. I guess it's unfortunate that with the residential schools that were put in place by the government and the churches, a lot of our people believe they need the consent of the federal government to do this. They don't need the consent. I know there are a lot of communities out there now that are moving in their own directions, and they certainly don't need the Indian Act to be able to determine how to select their leaders and how to start making things more community-driven in order that people can participate.

As far as people participating in the communities is concerned, what they would like to do in relation to their own people has always been the decision of those communities. As far as I'm concerned, when we start talking about our nations of people who are there, everybody has an opportunity to participate within those nations. Under this current regime, you only recognize the Indian Act bands that you talk about, so whatever decision the committee makes, I again think it will have negative consequences for those particular communities.

Mr. Hubbard: Chief, how do you perceive...? You're trying to tell us that you don't live under or don't abide by the present act. I have some difficulty with what you told us.

In terms of your own chiefship, are you elected every so many years? Who votes for you? Is it the people who live on reserve, or is it the people who are on your band list?

Chief Peters: The people who put me in place are the 133 chiefs within this region known as Ontario. They're the ones who provide for my election to the role I play on their behalf. In terms of a lot of things we're talking about right now and which you disagree with - the things I have said in regard to the communities - communities are making progress in spite of the federal government, and in spite of the policies that it continues to have, policies that virtually guarantee people will continue to be marginalized throughout their lifetime.

Mr. Hubbard: In terms of your position, you're not chief of a particular reserve or band. You are a grand chief of 130 communities. Is this what you're telling me?

Chief Peters: That's correct.

Mr. Hubbard: Going back to the band level, have you ever been chief of a band?

Chief Peters: No. I was a councillor for six years.

Mr. Hubbard: With the election process, do you believe that only those on reserve should vote?

Chief Peters: Have you ever lived on an Indian reserve?

Mr. Hubbard: I lived quite close to one, yes.

Chief Peters: Have you ever been involved in the politics of an Indian community?

The Chairman: Just a moment. The question -

Mr. Hubbard: I'm trying to determine -

The Chairman: Order, order.

The questions will be asked by the members. Thank you.

Mr. Hubbard: In terms of your appearance before the committee today, I'm trying to determine who you see as the voting people when it comes to the selection of the chief and council.

Chief Peters: Only the community decides. That's who will vote. I don't have the right to say that, nor do you.

Mr. Hubbard: Okay, thanks, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Mr. Murphy.

Mr. Murphy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome to the committee, Chief.

If I read you correctly, this is the way you would proceed: You would like to see the issues of treaties, self-government, access to resources, fiscal responsibilities, and all of those things cleared up, and then you would deal with the Indian Act by either dispensing with it or changing it.

.1715

I see that the process we're involved in is kind of the reverse. We want to work on treaties, self-government, and access to resources. We want more self-government initiatives taking place in our aboriginal communities. That's why I've sat on this committee for the last three years.

I think what we're trying to do...we're coming from another way. We're coming from the way of Bill C-79 as introducing some changes to the act that will allow bands and councils to have more responsibilities, and take that away from the minister. He is trying to move away from some of the things that are paternalistic, and trying to give more responsibility to bands and councils.

Is there no way that we somehow or another can work together? Because if people are over here wanting all of the major items changed immediately and then on with the Indian Act, and we're saying let's try to give more responsibility and so on back to the bands and the councils and also work on the treaties, do you...? I'd like you to respond, if you would, to what I'm trying to get across here.

Chief Peters: In my opening comments I made a number of recommendations on the areas I thought we could proceed with, because as far as I'm concerned this modified optional legislation being proposed right now does nothing more than reinforce the status quo. Oh, there may be a little wrinkle here and a new wrinkle there, but it doesn't add up to much.

In the beginning I said let's do some really positive, concrete things that don't need to get involved, and right now, in terms of people sitting down and sorting out, and the constitutional process - what the treaties mean and how they're going to be implemented.

I asked for something very basic that's going to change Indian inherent right policy, something I think we can do collectively - to talk about areas where our rights are justiciable and are not conditional on somebody agreeing to their existence, and to not play with words when you talk about an inherent right policy.

I also talked about litigation. Do you know what happens in the course of negotiations? I'm involved in negotiations at the national level, at the regional level, at the community level, at the organizational level, and do you know what happens to us? Every time we're in a dispute with the Government of Canada and we don't want to deal with the terms and conditions they want to unilaterally impose on the agreements we deal with, do you know what they say to us? ``If you don't like it, you take us to court.''

So I ask: let's get involved in amending the litigation policy. Because when I go to court, I see crown attorneys who make it very clear that I don't have any rights. I see people who are arguing on behalf of the federal government saying that our rights have been extinguished by legislation. They argue that our rights are altered by legislation. Most of the time they argue that when those things are extinguished they don't exist any more. A lot of those arguments are used.

I'm saying that there are steps that can be taken to change the system and to make sure that you're talking about real change. This is not real change you're fooling around with. You're tinkering with the Indian Act.

Half of those powers the minister calls discretionary powers are not things he goes out and exercises. When he does, most of the time he finds himself in the midst of a dispute that can only be worked out by the community.

I'll give you the example of Barrière Lake, where the minister intervened and selected one group over another. We had the same situation in Dalles for the last year and a half. I didn't see the minister coming in there and using his discretionary power to sort things out. He let one community and two groups fight it out.

I don't think those discretionary powers we're talking about that can be exercised by the minister are being used at all. I don't think a lot of those processes of the Indian Act are currently being used either. I think people have already found ways to go around most of the ones that are there, so why -

Mr. Murphy: That's precisely why we're trying to change them.

The Chairman: Mr. Duncan.

Mr. Duncan: Thanks.

The example - sometimes it's easier to talk to examples. You did bring up Lac Barrière, and there are other reserves where we have had real splits in the communities. At times the minister intervenes; at times the minister doesn't intervene. There doesn't seem to be consistency. Of course, this often leads to all kinds of adding more fuel to the fire. Indeed, I think that sometimes he's done the right thing, but it's not the best mechanism. I think we all recognize that. What we do need is a new mechanism. This is something that's fairly high on my agenda.

.1720

There are times when an outside party is needed in order to try to resolve these issues. Do you have a strong suggestion for us as to how that could be set up? How could we do that?

Chief Peters: I think part of the fundamental problem we have is that the elected systems we have in our communities right now are imposed on us. They're not our systems. We never consented to have those systems in our communities. They came with the Indian Act.

For the last 115 years or so, this whole process has occurred. It's very easy under this system to have exclusion and powers that are controlled by a very small group of people.

We're trying right now to find ways of going back to our own traditional systems of government and methods whereby families and more people in the communities are involved in the decision-making process. This is so people can help with social and economic issues that affect them. It's so they have a say in what happens to them, as opposed to the current systems we have, which certainly don't function in the best way possible.

What we're looking at right now and what we're trying to create are methods of dispute resolution, not only on the outside, but on the inside of the community. We on the inside of the community have to be able to deal with the kinds of violence that occur in our communities and the kinds of ways of dealing with alcohol, drug, and solvent abuse problems. These are all the things that are common to people who get marginalized in society, who are part of the ongoing poverty of this land.

That's the kind of thing we see happening. I don't see the Indian Act being helpful in being able to deal with those kinds of systems right now.

I agree with you that occasionally there will be times when people are needed to be able to resolve disputes between people. That's the time when I think people who are of the same making need to be sent in from other communities. They belong to the same nation. That's the first way of trying to resolve issues.

Right now, this Indian Act makes everybody the same. We're all band Indians out here, you know; we're not part of those nations we belong to. There are cultural differences in the way people resolve disputes that are not reflected in any of these processes people deal with.

So I think there are opportunities for us to be able to advance the different kinds of ways of being able to resolve the disputes we have. I think they're best handled in a way by which we can help our own people to understand how to be able to resolve disputes instead of continuing to have those options and groups as means of perpetuating that internalized conflict we have had from the process of colonization.

The Chairman: This concludes this part of the hearing procedures.

We want to thank you very much for a very interesting presentation. In spite of the fact that I tried to bring it back, everything you say is important and we hear you. So thank you very much.

Chief Peters: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Tomorrow we meet in this room at 1 p.m. Is there anything else for the good of the club?

Thank you very much. I thank the support staff for bearing with us today.

The meeting is adjourned.

Return to Committee Home Page