AANR Committee Meeting

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

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

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

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Wednesday, January 29, 2003

1540

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

The Chair

Ms. Terri Brown (President, Native Women's Association of Canada)

1555

1600

The Chair

Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, Canadian Alliance)

Ms. Terri Brown

1605

Mr. Brian Pallister

Ms. Terri Brown

Mr. Brian Pallister

Ms. Terri Brown

The Chair

Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ)

1610

Ms. Terri Brown

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

1615

Ms. Terri Brown

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Terri Brown

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Terri Brown

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Terri Brown

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.)

Ms. Terri Brown

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Ms. Terri Brown

Mr. Charles Hubbard

1620

Ms. Terri Brown

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Ms. Terri Brown

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Ms. Terri Brown

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Ms. Terri Brown

Mr. Charles Hubbard

The Chair

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

Ms. Terri Brown

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Ms. Terri Brown

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Ms. Terri Brown

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Ms. Terri Brown

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Claude Bachand

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Terri Brown

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Terri Brown

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Terri Brown

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Terri Brown

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Terri Brown

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Terri Brown

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.)

1625

Ms. Terri Brown

Mrs. Karen Redman

Ms. Terri Brown

Mrs. Karen Redman

Ms. Terri Brown

The Chair

Ms. Terri Brown

The Chair

1630

Mr. Roger Obonsawin (Senator, National Association of Friendship Centres)

The Chair

Mr. Roger Obonsawin

1635

1640

1645

1650

Ms. Jocelyn Formsma (President of the Aboriginal Youth Council, National Association of Friendship Centres)

1655

The Chair

Mr. Brian Pallister

1700

Mr. Roger Obonsawin

Mr. Brian Pallister

Mr. Roger Obonsawin

Mr. Brian Pallister

Mr. Roger Obonsawin

Mr. Brian Pallister

Mr. Roger Obonsawin

The Chair

Mr. Claude Bachand

1705

The Chair

Mr. Claude Bachand

Mr. Roger Obonsawin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

1710

Mr. Roger Obonsawin

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Roger Obonsawin

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

1715

Mr. Roger Obonsawin

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Mr. Roger Obonsawin

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Mr. Roger Obonsawin

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Mr. Roger Obonsawin

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Mr. Roger Obonsawin

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Mr. Roger Obonsawin

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Mr. Roger Obonsawin

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Mr. Roger Obonsawin

1720

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Roger Obonsawin

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Roger Obonsawin

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Roger Obonsawin

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Roger Obonsawin

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Roger Obonsawin

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Roger Obonsawin

The Chair

Mr. Claude Bachand

Mr. Roger Obonsawin

Mr. Claude Bachand

The Chair

Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.)

Mr. Roger Obonsawin

Mr. Julian Reed

Mr. Roger Obonsawin

1725

The Chair

Mr. Roger Obonsawin

The Chair

Mr. Roger Obonsawin

The Chair

Ms. Jocelyn Formsma

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources

NUMBER 017

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Wednesday, January 29, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹ (1540)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.)): The committee is prepared to start but our witnesses are not here. I understand they are on their way.

To you, my colleagues, we are on their time. They are late; we will be finishing on time.

We will suspend until they appear.

¹ (1539)

¹ (1550)

The Chair: We will continue our proceedings on Bill C-7, an act respecting leadership selection, administration and accountability of Indian bands, and to make related amendments to other acts.

We are pleased to receive today, from the Native Women's Association of Canada, Terri Brown, president.

We're running late and we will have to end at 4:30. We have close to 40 minutes. We invite you to make your presentation immediately.

Ms. Terri Brown (President, Native Women's Association of Canada): Thank you very much, and good afternoon. I'd like to apologize for being late this afternoon--we had an emergency that needed to be dealt with. Thank you for this opportunity to present to you.

The Native Women's Association of Canada is a national non-profit organization that was incorporated in 1974. It is an aggregate of associations in the provinces and territories of Canada, and works on principles like those of the traditional grandmothers' lodge, in which members such as aunties, mothers, grandmothers, and relatives collectively recognize, respect, promote, defend, and enhance our aboriginal ancestral laws, spiritual beliefs, language, and the traditions given by the Creator.

Among the objectives of NWAC are to be the national voice for native women; to address issues in a manner that reflects the changing needs of aboriginal women in Canada; to assist and promote common goals toward self-determination and self-sufficiency for native peoples in our roles as mothers and leaders; to promote equal opportunity for aboriginal women in programs and activities; to advance issues and concerns of aboriginal women; and to cultivate and teach the characteristics that are unique aspects of our culture and historical traditions.

We have previously expressed our concern with the First Nations Governance Act. In my previous presentation to the committee, I outlined the issues we had with the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, Robert Nault, concerning the marginalization of aboriginal women's groups and the endorsing of the newly formed National Aboriginal Women's Association by providing funding and appointing its members to the joint ministerial advisory committee for the first nations governance initiative.

We question the motivation of INAC to so quickly fund the new women's organization, apparently only three weeks after it was formed. We also question the mandate of this organization--how they claim to now represent aboriginal women on national issues, without adequate regional representation or membership.

We strongly believe the perspectives of aboriginal women must be taken into account regarding any proposed changes to the Indian Act or proposed new governance legislation. For too long, aboriginal women have been doubly disadvantaged and discriminated against because of their race and gender. As a national body duly mandated by all of our member groups to represent the issues and concerns of aboriginal women, we have highlighted the following issues and concerns, and have made a number of recommendations. I will not have time to read all of my presentation; however, I'm sure you will.

First nations women have too long been excluded from the circle of decision-making. This has led to male bias and has perpetuated the disintegration of harmony between males and females in aboriginal societies. Such conduct is unconscionable. While colonialism is at the root of our learned disrespect for women, we cannot blame colonialism for our informed actions today. This generation of first nations men must take some measure of responsibility for the activities in which they engage.

The consultative process phase one was not at all conclusive of aboriginal women. The DIAND consultation consulted with less than 1% of the aboriginal population. We do not know who these people were and whether or not they were, in fact, first nations. Many were DIAND employees and were counted among those consulted.

We have questioned accountability over the years. Elections and legal entity are issues within our communities, but we will not put those issues before membership, nationhood, and matrimonial property rights. If we do not advance these issues forward and eliminate racial and gender discrimination against aboriginal women, we will have not advanced at all.

If we do not re-establish our roles as aboriginal women, we have little hope for tomorrow. Over the years, the Native Women's Association has presented on many occasions on Bill C-31 and on matrimonial property rights. In this particular process, however, we have not received any resources to develop any kind of comprehensive position, so I'm not able to present that to you today, due to being under-resourced. However, I want to briefly go over what position we have developed in relation to the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

¹ (1555)

A report we have developed says that the Canadian Human Rights Commission has a role to play in the advancement of the equality of aboriginal women. Moreover, absence from the Canadian Human Rights Act of effective protection for aboriginal women sends a powerful message that continuing discrimination against the most vulnerable is acceptable.

The stakes are high. Without effective human rights protection, aboriginal women resort to status under Bill C-31. Living off reserve or on reserve will be excluded from the discussions and from the negotiations leading to a new generation of aboriginal governments. This discrimination of the past, unchecked in the present, will poison the future. Without human rights protection, aboriginal women will face a tough choice: litigate under the charter or have no rights at all.

I want to go briefly over a few of our recommendations in regard to the Canadian Human Rights Act. In the paragraph below, NWAC gives details of the CHRA and other measures that it has asked the review to recommend.

First, section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act should be repealed.

Second, to protect traditional aboriginal rights from the impact of a Canadian Human Rights Act without section 67, we should include in the act a provision similar to section 25 of the charter: “the guarantee in this Act of certain rights shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any Aboriginal, treaty or other right that pertains to Aboriginal peoples in Canada”.

I will not read all of them.

Fourth, to the existing grounds in the Canadian Human Rights Act should be added the prohibited grounds of off-reserve resident—not Indian Act status—and Bill C-31 status. It should be drafted in language compatible with the other provisions of the act, and aim appropriately at the kinds of discrimination discussed in this paper.

Sixth, the Canadian Human Rights Act should apply to band councils, to their membership codes, and to the actions of the federal government pursuant to the Indian Act. The act should also include a standard provision that would make the Canadian Human Rights Act applicable to self-government agreements, unless and until measures to protect human rights were put in place pursuant to the agreement.

The last recommendation I'd like to share with you is the seventh, which is very important to the Native Women's Association of Canada. It reads:

In the long run, NWAC recommends that there be a national Aboriginal Bill of Rights, draftedfrom the grassroots, that would be applicable to First Nations governments. The draftingshould include participation from NWAC as well as organizations representing off-reserve andnon-status Indians. This Bill of Rights could also be made applicable to the federal andprovincial governments, given the role of government in reproducing the inequality ofAboriginal people, and the continuous devolution of responsibility for Native people from thefederal government to the provinces.

With that, we have a very well-developed position that can be entered as part of our position. However, as I mentioned earlier, we did not develop a very strong position on other parts of the First Nations Governance Act, due to lack of resources. This was partly because we did not have issues on the table that we found to be very prominent for aboriginal women in Canada.

I'll just leave it at that. I'm sure you're going to proceed with some questions.

º (1600)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We will proceed to one round of questions of five minutes. This means that every party will have one question. As per our agreement, the official opposition will have seven minutes.

Mr. Pallister.

[Translation]

Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

Thank you very much, Madam Brown, for your presentation.

I first want to acknowledge and thank you and your organization for the many years' of work you have put into advocacy on behalf of aboriginal women. Some of the changes that have come have been very slow in coming. But when they have come at all, it has been because of the work of organizations such as yours. So I think that not only aboriginal women but all Canadians owe you a debt of gratitude for this.

We in the Canadian Alliance are very concerned about enhancing the opportunity for equality of aboriginal women. We've developed positions in support of, and virtually identical to, your organization's positions, as far as advocating for matrimonial property regimes being put in place on reserve.

With you, I would like to address the issue of the Canadian Human Rights Act. As you know, it is not repealed by these proposals. A number of people have expressed technical concerns, I suppose, about why this should not happen.

Our concerns are that when women stand for their rights before any tribunal, the Canadian Human Rights Act included, whether aboriginal or not aboriginal, the issue of the intersectionality of their claim is important. In other words, it is very difficult for a woman to prove that she is being discriminated against solely on the basis of her gender. With these interpretive clauses that the government is proposing, this will still be very difficult for aboriginal women. Section 67 is really not repealed. Even though the appearance might be that it gives protection to aboriginal women, it does not, in the sense that were an aboriginal woman to go forward to the Human Rights Tribunal, she would have to make the case that she was being discriminated against solely on gender; otherwise the custom would prevail. That is our understanding at this point.

Yesterday the Canadian Human Rights Commission was here and expressed concern about the nature of the wording and the confusion that might result as a consequence of it, and so on. We're very concerned and want to work with you to promote equality for aboriginal women. Do you share this concern, that this will not achieve that goal, that this will actually simply muddy the waters somewhat?

Ms. Terri Brown: Yes, that definitely is a concern of ours, because for aboriginal women, just removing the section will not end our problems.

Historically, it did not come from our aboriginal men either. It started with the Indian Act. Over the years we have been asking that all the discriminatory clauses be removed from the Indian Act, and that has not been done, of course.

We are fully aware that having section 67 repealed would not solve our problems either, because it's very, very complex, and it's not on gender. Race has a big part to play in the discrimination we experience, and racism is very rampant in this country. On the basis of gender solely, it will not be solving our issues for us.

º (1605)

Mr. Brian Pallister: You are very familiar, more than many are, of the actual cases, the actual examples that occur. I am becoming, in my capacity, more and more familiar with some of the very sad and painful examples where women have been discriminated against--on reserve, in particular.

I have been repeatedly asking witnesses to our committee how they feel about the concept of a chief-appointed redress officer. I think you know where I am coming from in my concerns. Many of the women who have spoken to our office or spoken to me personally simply don't feel that could ever work. On many occasions, their concerns are directly related to powers the chief has exercised. Under this proposal, the redress officer would not only be appointed by chief-in-council, but would largely be accountable to the chief-in-council and would have as its largest power the power to ask the chief to reconsider his or her decision. We do not think this is a good model.

We've been advocating for some time for a national ombudsman's office to offer genuine redress, at arm's length, independent from the powers of chiefs-in-council. Do you concur with that request? Do you agree?

Ms. Terri Brown: Yes, it's definitely a position that we have taken over the years, that we have an ombudsman's office to deal with issues.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Very good. Thank you for that.

We'll continue, and I want to offer again that in any way you feel that in your capacity we can assist you, we would certainly be honoured to do that.

Ms. Terri Brown: Thanks.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Bachand.

Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have a brief comment to get on the record. I'd just like to mention to the chairman that the document was circulated in English only and that I would have appreciated being consulted before its distribution. You know about my legendary open-mindedness; I certainly would not have opposed it. However, we're now at a stage where documents are being distributed without my being consulted at all. I just thought it was important to make this clarification.

I'd also like to say that I'm happy to be coming back here for an afternoon on the Aboriginal Affairs Committee because I was part of it for seven years. I knew Ms. Brown, who preceded you, Ms. Marilyn Buffalo and many other women interested in matters concerning women.

Well, the more things change the more they stay the same. I haven't come to this committee for two years, but it seems we're just about at the same point when I left. I'd like to hear your thoughts on that, Ms. Brown, because we parliamentarians are often confronted... I know all about the dynamics of colonialism and all that's been forced upon you ever since the White man showed up. I understand all that, but as legislators we're sometimes stuck when we're dealing with aboriginal matters and, for example, we depend upon the democratic institutions of aboriginal bands or reserves.

Among other things, I remember cases where the band or the reserve chief would make certain decisions with its committee and then you had women's groups showing up here to say it didn't make sense. I also understand that the presence of women in decision-making circles, just as in politics, even for us, White people, is a problem. I don't think we even have 20 per cent of women in this House. We have excellent ones but unfortunately we're nowhere near the 50 per cent mark.

So I'm a bit stuck when we often are faced with a democratic decision coming from an aboriginal community and that the women's groups then show up and tell us that it can't work and we'll have to change everything. That kind of situation is an embarrassment for all of us as elected representatives. At that point, it's embarrassing to tell groups, lobbying groups who actually are important, in my opinion, that we won't listen to them or that we can't listen to them because the democratic authorities on their reserves have made a decision.

That's how it was a couple of years ago and, if I'm understanding the present reasoning, it's still that way. Discrimination against women exists inside their own aboriginal institutions.

Am I mistaken in saying that or do you think that the situation has changed during the last few years?

º (1610)

[English]

Ms. Terri Brown: I hope I'm understanding your question.

Over the years, of course, change has been very slow for aboriginal women, and there are many reasons for that. One of the reasons is that as aboriginal women, we have been displaced from our roles as decision-makers and as leaders in our communities. We cannot solely say that it's because of our aboriginal leadership, however. Part of it is a long legacy that has been left by colonialism, especially the Indian Act, which is as racist and sexist a piece of legislation as ever existed on earth, as racist and sexist as I've ever come across, or heard discussed. It's very discriminatory.

Also, there is the legacy of the churches and of government, which has destroyed our cultures and has destroyed the role of women, so that we're very severely disadvantaged in our own country, in our own homelands, in our own communities. This has developed over 500 years. It was originally taken out of our hands by the colonial governments that wrote legislation we had to live under.

Currently, now, our nations have developed to a stage where some people actually believe in what is written. For example, the electoral system was very foreign to us. It was a whole different system that existed, a whole social structure that was very different where women were not particularly discriminated against, where we had a role in health, in education, and every social aspect in our communities, and that has been seriously eroded. So we can't say that it's because the aboriginal leadership are racists or discriminatory against us; it's because the legislation that we were forced to live under for so many years has really created serious damage in our leadership and in our communities.

It's a very long story, and to hear you brush it over and say you know all the issues around colonialism is difficult for me hear. It's difficult for me to hear that it's acceptable for it to be just brushed aside so lightly. It's very difficult for me, as an aboriginal person, to hear that kind of comment and to find it acceptable in this room. I want to say that.

With that, I will move on to the next question.

The Chair: In defence of monsieur Bachand, I will say, having chaired this committee for a number of years before, that if anyone comes close to understanding, I would credit him for that, because he has gone out of his way to visit the communities. He's not a member of this committee now, but when he was I would say that he was the most informed.

So maybe you can find some comfort in thinking that at least he made an effort to understand it. I don't usually come to the defence of members, but in all fairness....

Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Thank you, Ms. Brown, for your briefing.

Minister Nault has had a difficult time finding any legitimate aboriginal organizations that are enthusiastic about Bill C-7. In fact, as you know, the leadership virtually across the country has made a blanket condemnation of it for getting off to such a terrible start and not recognizing, or at least there being the possibility of it not recognizing, historic treaty rights, etc., jeopardizing those things. He's also been accused of heavy-handedness and even of taking a bullying approach towards those who disagree with him.

Your organization was cited in the actual cabinet memorandum along these lines, where it says:

“The Native Women's Association of Canada opposed the initiative; as a result the National Aboriginal Women's Association of Canada was formed to participate in FNG.”

That's a quote from the cabinet document through which Minister Nault was trying to sell this package to his own cabinet.

Do you see a direct connection between your funding being cut and a new native women's association being formed due to your opposition to the FNG? Do you think there's a direct connection, a punitive measure, a punishment, if you will, for not playing ball with this piece of flawed legislation?

º (1615)

Ms. Terri Brown: Absolutely. We do see a connection between the position we've taken with the initiative initially. Initially it wasn't that we were in full opposition to it. We wanted to get our issues on the table, which we weren't successful at. We weren't organized enough to really have a collective decision at that point. We wanted some resources to organize and consult, do a real true consultation with our groups and develop a very strong position. We asked that there be a freeze on the initiative so that we would have three to four months to decide what direction we wanted to go in. At that point we were aligned with the AFN in a lot of ways. It was very flawed from the very beginning and the consultation was very weak.

When we asked for the freeze, I think it was misinterpreted by Minister Nault's office that we didn't want to participate. In fact, we were just unsure. We were not in a position to say at that point, and it was misinterpreted. At that point, within three weeks after our AGM in Edmonton, a new group was formed and they were funded a considerable amount of money.

Mr. Pat Martin: Do you know approximately how much money, Ms. Brown?

Ms. Terri Brown: We've heard up to $400,000.

Mr. Pat Martin: I've heard more than that.

Ms. Terri Brown: We haven't really been given all the information.

When phase two started we were in a position to say yes, we want to become more involved, and we submitted a proposal, a very comprehensive one, one that would be very representative of our group

At that point the position of the minister's office was that we were no longer a credible group, on the grounds that there was another national organization that in fact--

Mr. Pat Martin: A puppet, dummy group established, I understand.

Ms. Terri Brown: Our credibility was questioned because of this new group and we were asked to provide some sort of evidence that we were still a credible group.

So I went to my board and said we need a motion or something, a strong statement, which we came up with, and I wrote a letter saying that this is the position of.... I believe there were a few groups that he had thought were members of this other group, but which weren't at the time.

To make a long story short, in the end some other games developed whereby they said that they didn't receive our proposal. We proved to them that it was submitted and they said, “You didn't provide evidence that you're a credible group. We didn't receive your letter.” So we provided all this backup documentation.

In the long run, ten months had gone by, a year had gone by, the money was flowing and there were other things happening at that point.

They offered us $50,000 a few months ago to develop a position for ourselves. We said at that point that it was not enough money. At that point we were just frustrated with the process, with letters getting lost and proposals being...all of these things. We just let it go at that.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Hubbard.

Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Ms. Brown, for coming.

It's my understanding that your group has had long-term funding from our department.

Ms. Terri Brown: Not from the department. We've never had any substantial funding from the Department of Indian Affairs that would make any difference in the lives of aboriginal women.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: So do you feel, in terms of the submission you're offering today, that you weren't adequately funded--

Ms. Terri Brown: I'm sorry, I can't hear you.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: --that you have not been adequately funded to come before the committee to present to our minister your observations and concerns?

Now, you have mentioned, for example, the Human Rights Act, you've talked about an ombudsman. We've had other groups who have come and talked about the enforcement officers, who've talked about the bill generally.

What parts of the bill do you think are the weakest, which the minister has to improve upon?

º (1620)

Ms. Terri Brown: We believe that from the start it was weak, because we believe in developing from the grassroots and not writing legislation that we bring in. We want to be consulted--that's why we're asking for the aboriginal commission to be developed--and as women be part of developing the legislation and not just have it brought in to us like the governance initiative, the governance act, where we don't have funding and we're not able to develop legally a strong position.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: So you have not really studied the bill to that extent where you could say to our committee, this is good, that's no so good, and we don't feel confident to be able to represent.

Ms. Terri Brown: I believe Minister Nault has funded some women's groups across the country with $5,000 to present a small little paper to present their positions, but we have not been funded to develop anything of value really.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: With this, then, do you have any strong recommendations to make to our committee? You're talking process, but our committee is not dealing with process, we're dealing with--

Ms. Terri Brown: Yes, that's right.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: --either for or against.

Ms. Terri Brown: No, that's right, no we don't have any strong recommendations.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Thank you then, Mr. Chair, I won't take any more time.

The Chair: We can do a two-minute round. The total two minutes is for the question and the answer. I hope my colleagues won't take even a minute for the question, to allow you time to share with us your expertise.

Mr. Vellacott.

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

Ms. Brown, do you share JMAC's view that the matrimonial property issue should be a key area of reform? And if so I'll ask you, as a follow-up, would it be feasible to address this in Bill C-7 in some manner?

Ms. Terri Brown: This has been an issue we've dealt with over the years, matrimonial property rights, because it does not exist currently for aboriginal women on reserve. It is an issue we have done some work on and we can present a position on it.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Is it a crucial area to work on?

Ms. Terri Brown: It is, yes, that's one of the issues we had asked to be brought forward, along with Bill C-31.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Do you have some material you could provide us maybe after the meeting?

Ms. Terri Brown: I can provide that, sure.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I don't know if that can be tabled here or what the permission would be, but it would be great to have that.

Ms. Terri Brown: Sure.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you. Please send it to the clerk; it will be shared with every member of the committee.

Monsieur Bachand.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand: I'm done.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Martin, two minutes.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you.

I note then that your organization was not part of the joint ministerial advisory committee. You were not invited to sit on the JMAC committee, is that correct?

Ms. Terri Brown: Right.

Mr. Pat Martin: Were you there and were you able to spend that year looking at what might be in Bill C-7, would you have recommended, for instance, some of the issues raised by the special representative, who was appointed in I believe May 2000 by the minister to look into issues of interest to first nations women?

Would it have been your recommendation then to have the recommendations of the special representative included in Bill C-7?

Ms. Terri Brown: Yes.

Mr. Pat Martin: You would view that as beneficial?

Ms. Terri Brown: Yes.

Mr. Pat Martin: I see. But you weren't allowed to sit on JMAC?

Ms. Terri Brown: No, we did not participate in that.

Mr. Pat Martin: And how many years has your organization been the voice of native women in Canada?

Ms. Terri Brown: It's been 28 years.

Mr. Pat Martin: So 28 years. How long has this new NAWA been around?

Ms. Terri Brown: I believe 13 months.

Mr. Pat Martin: It's 13 months. And you have to prove that you're a legitimate organization before you'll get funding to participate?

Ms. Terri Brown:Right.

Mr. Pat Martin: And they get x number of dollars. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Ms. Brown, thank you very much for an excellent presentation. Do you have any closing remarks? We do have time.

First we'll go to Mrs. Redman for two minutes.

Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Thank you. I will make this very quick.

My question is on the tail of what Mr. Martin was asking you, Ms. Brown. I would be interested to know what efforts were required of you in order to demonstrate your legitimacy as an organization. What demands were made to you by the government?

º (1625)

Ms. Terri Brown: What they had requested from me was to go back and present this to a full board and to have a motion passed saying that our members were still in support of our group. In particular, there were three regions in question, and I had to make sure they were on record to say that they supported the Native Women's Association.

Mrs. Karen Redman: And just to continue, were those requests relatively reasonable, and doable, and consistent with what a normal process would be for your organization in order to come forward with the motion, or resolution, or a position?

Ms. Terri Brown: It was a very unusual request, because I'm an elected representative of aboriginal women in the country, it's a very well-known organization, and it's very well known that we have annual assemblies where we elect the leader. So it would be like asking Matthew Coon Come, I suppose, to prove his credibility; it is that bizarre in a lot of ways.

Mrs. Karen Redman: So you would not normally go back and restate a position--because I'm assuming that's what they were asking you to do. You would not normally pass the positions you were bringing forward through your body or membership. Instead, would the motion or position usually just go forward? How would you arrive at it?

Ms. Terri Brown: Well, if we develop any position, our board normally does approve it. But it's unusual to ask a president to prove he has the support of the people who elect him.

The Chair: Thank you.

We have five minutes for closing remarks.

Ms. Brown, the floor is yours.

Ms. Terri Brown: Okay.

I just want to reflect on my submission again. There are many things and recommendations in it, which I would ask you to read, particularly relating to the Canadian Human Rights Act. I just want to press upon you that the Native Women's Association is still a very active and representative group of aboriginal women across the country. I get calls all the time from women across the country who are very concerned with this First Nations Governance Act, because there are many, many issues at hand.

First, they do not understand the process. They do not feel included and do not believe they have been consulted properly. We are in the same boat: we do not believe we have been consulted or been provided enough opportunity to develop a strong position.

The aboriginal women, of course, have been very organized over the years in bringing forth human rights complaints, and in going to the international level to the United Nations. It's not as if we've ever had a lot of funding and resources. We operate mainly on a volunteer basis with our member groups, who do not have a lot of funding either. So I just want to make this very clear, for people who may think it's unusual that we do not have a strong position or that we do not know what we want.

Truly, we are the marginalized people in this country. We do not have a lot of resources at hand. In fact, we don't have a lot of time to sit around considering the huge issues we have in communities, concerning poverty and unemployment and many of the social issues. We do not have a lot of time to sit around and develop positions.

Anyway, I thank you for this opportunity. I wish you the best.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

[Translation]

Mr. Bachand, for your information, the document did circulate in English only. I didn't notice it, but the committee did pass a rule stating that no document can be distributed unless it's available in both languages. We're sorry.

[English]

I now welcome, from the National Association of Friendship Centres, Senator Roger Obonsawin, and the president of the Aboriginal Youth Council, Jocelyn Formsma.

Welcome. Thank you for appearing. We invite you to make a presentation, which will be followed by questions and answers.

To be clear, when we say a four-minute round, it's four minutes for the questions and the answers. I always encourage my colleagues to ask short questions.

Please proceed with your presentation.

º (1630)

[Translation]

Mr. Roger Obonsawin (Senator, National Association of Friendship Centres): Good afternoon, members of the committee. First, I would like to ask you if you have obtained the French version of our report because I only sent it Sunday night.

The Chair: Yes.

[English]

Mr. Roger Obonsawin: [Witness speaks in his native language]

Good afternoon, members of the committee.

First of all, I want to recognize and thank the Algonquin Nation, on whose territory we are. Second, I want to express my appreciation to the National Association of Friendship Centres for bestowing upon me the honour of speaking on their behalf. And finally, I thank the members of the standing committee for allowing me the time to address the very important question before us today, Bill C-7, the First Nations Governance Act.

Mr. Nault stated on April 18, 2002:

Make no mistake. We stand at an historic turning point in our relationship with First Nations. Change is in the air—change which puts the tools of economic self-sufficiency into the hands of First Nations. Change which knows that the old cycle of social assistance does not work and must not continue. Change that sees economic development—not economic dependency—as the road ahead.

Well, Minister Nault is right for once.

However, aboriginal nations and Canada are at a crossroads. Yet we have been at this juncture for decades, with no willingness on the part of Canada to make the changes necessary for true progress to happen. So I've asked myself a question. Why is Canada introducing this and other legislation now? The answer is very clear. Since the early 1980s and the Guerin Supreme Court decision on Canada's fiduciary obligation to aboriginal peoples, federal governments have been exploring and implementing options that would reduce current financial liabilities and potential future liabilities. I maintain, therefore, that the First Nations Governance Act and subsequent accompanying legislation is part of Canada's attempts to achieve this goal. More importantly, the enactment of this and subsequent proposed legislation will only create more problems and be more costly in the long run for Canada and aboriginal peoples.

Quite clearly, Canada cannot continue to micro-manage aboriginal affairs. Colonialism does not work. You have to let first nations come up with their own solutions to the problems faced. You have to let us make our own mistakes. You should not try to legislate answers for us. Let us be ourselves. Let us do our own thing, because when you try to do it, whether through legislation, policies, or programs, you're just micro-managing. Unless you, as governments, give us the opportunity to develop our own solutions, we will never get out of this mess.

Minister Nault says there are first nations who want such things as fiscal institutions, land management, and accountability. Well, let them have it—but not through legislation, because it impacts on all of us once legislated.

In spite of the numerous roadblocks faced, a number of our first nations have committed themselves to start finding their own solutions and answers to governance and economic development. I cite the Pimicikamik Cree Nation of Cross Lake, Manitoba, for one. I brought this to the attention of one of the members, John Godfrey, on CounterSpin. They have a governance structure in place that has the highest degree of accountability to its own community compared to any other native or non-native governance structure in Canada.

º (1635)

They have accomplished this without federal legislation and money. Therefore, their structure is not sanctioned or recognized by Canada. Indian Affairs doesn't recognize it. What is important, however, is that their community recognizes it, as evidenced by participation in band elections as high as 93% of all their members, both on reserve and off reserve. So they have confidence in their structure. Their structure is accountable, yet this act will force them to change that structure. It puts them into a corporate structure, rather than a structure based on community norms and culture.

In addition to the Pimicikamak Cree Nation, I cite the large number of first nations who have committed themselves to finding their own solutions to economic development. I refer to those first nations that are actively supporting the recommendations and framework developed by Dr. Fred Lazar, an economist at York University. I would ask that the documents from Dr. Lazar's report be tabled as part of this presentation, because there are alternatives to the legislation now proposed.

Those first nations are moving in the direction of implementing those recommendations. They also include the major national native organizations and many regional ones, including the National Association of Friendship Centres. I will leave you copies of Dr. Lazar's report.

I submit, therefore, that the governance act has not been developed to devolve powers to communities, or to increase accountability. It is being introduced to solidify federal control over first nations. Colonialism does not work.

As pointed out by Dr. Lazar, the debate related to the governance act and subsequent legislation is not about accountability as a step to economic independence. The debate is quite simply about nation-building by the first nations. Nation-building requires sovereignty. The two go hand in hand.

The Harvard research report project that Minister Nault has made reference to in the past emphatically demonstrates that sovereignty is the key to economic development for aboriginal communities and nations. If this assumption is correct, as Dr. Lazar states, or at least has some merit, the first nations individually, multilaterally, and/or collectively can create these institutions on their own and establish the governance and legal structures required. They do not need Ottawa to pass legislation to do these things.

Contrary to Minister Nault's assertion, the First Nations Governance Act is not stand-alone legislation. You cannot deal with the governance act without dealing with the other legislation, and we're going to go through this charade a number of times before it's over. I'll be giving the same message for every piece of legislation that gets introduced. What right do you have to legislate how I'm going to run my life, who I am as a native person? What right does this body have to do that--the Parliament of Canada? You come to my country and you tell me who I am? You don't have that right. We have that right.

I maintain that the governance act is part of a suite of legislation that, in combination, will lead to the municipalization of first nations. I refer to a copy of a newsletter published by our firm, Anasazi, volume seven, number one, outlining the effects of the governance act and companion legislation. Copies will be made available:

“The governance act will operate as a non-optional statute to impose municipal local government on first nation communities. Such local administrations are limited to bylaw-making functions and typically are subject to provincial laws.”

The Indian Act provisions for tax immunity will disappear. This is intended to provide municipal council with own-source revenues, and allow the federal government to phase out its special funding. Income taxes are soon to follow, as outlined on page 15 of that report.

º (1640)

Further, Paul Martin, as finance minister, declared in the Toronto Sun on December 21, 1994--I remember that very clearly--“Forcing natives to pay income tax is part of the process toward self-government...it's obviously tied to self-government”. That's what he said. Now Mr. Nault is saying they're separate legislation and have nothing to do with each other.

Who do you think you're dealing with? We have lawyers now. We're not coming out of the bush. We understand what's being said. We can analyse; we can identify those things. We know how to develop policies. Who do you think you're dealing with when you say those things to us?

“Newly established municipalities can then expect their future programs and services to come through the same channels as other Canadians, i.e. the provinces.”

“The 'Governance Act' is linked to other recent statutes such as the 'Land Management Act', which also automatically becomes non-optional. This is because municipalities exist on a mix of public lands (set aside for municipal offices, parks, etc.) and private lands (held by owners who pay property taxes).”

“Private lands are held in 'fee simple' title. This means that they can be sold, leased, or used as collateral for bank loans. A similar devolved land management policy in the U.S.A. resulted in the loss of lands to lenders for unpaid loans. The effect was also to 'checkerboard' reserves, because privatized land was often sold to non-natives.”

The Menominee Nation, for instance, were landless. They ended up in cities scattered across the United States. This is the first step towards that process.

Whenever Minister Nault talks of bringing first nations to the promised land by making them self-governing, one could conclude that he is using a definition of “governance” found in various legal dictionaries.

Thus, Jowitt's Dictionary of English Law, 1965, defines “governance” as “That form of fundamental principles by which a nation of the State is governed; the principal officers of State.”

The Dictionary of Canadian Law, Dukelow and Nuse, 1990, defines “governance” as “The government of Canada or of any province and includes any department, commission, board, or branch of such government.”

In Canada, the federal government and the provinces are sovereign within their respective constitutional sphere of powers. Clearly, this is not the kind of constitutionally protected autonomy that the federal government has in mind for first nations. The First Nations Governance Act is a reflection of that.

It is clear from this analysis that as a result of the Corbière Supreme Court decision, aboriginal peoples living in urban areas have rights that are similar to those rights exercised on reserve lands. Limiting those rights to municipal types of structures, rather than true sovereign nation structures, results in the elimination of aboriginal and treaty rights, both on and off reserve. This will lead to increased migration to, and poverty in, large urban areas.

I submit that this legislation, along with the accompanying legislation, will result in a situation where reserve-based councils, as well as urban-based aboriginal councils--which are emerging now in Winnipeg, Toronto, and Vancouver--and agencies will be put in a position where they will continue to administer their own poverty.

That's what it's all about. Don't give us the resources to set up our governance, because the provinces already have that, and the federal government has that. We don't get a share of our own resources to administer our own governance. All we get are the handouts to administer our own poverty.

We only have to examine similar termination policies in the United States in the mid-1950s and early 1960s. The results were so disastrous that the policy was withdrawn in the mid-1960s. In spite of this, the Liberal government and Indian Affairs Minister Chrétien formally introduced that policy with the white paper of 1969--five years after the United States government scrapped it because it wasn't working.

º (1645)

But that's enough talk about what the problems are. What are the solutions? I think this committee would be much better served if it were able to address the solutions, not the reaction to legislation that many people are not even going to abide by.

What are the solutions to aboriginal governance and economic self-sufficiency? Clearly, these solutions must be based on aboriginal self-determination in a defined sphere of sovereignty.

The answer to our issues is not self-government, it is self-determination. Self-determination simply means the right of the people to develop their own forms of governance and political institutions without outside interference or coercion.

Now, if you say Indian Affairs is not interfering or using coercion to define our governments and how we run ourselves, you're being very naive. We saw examples of that coercion when you talked to the Native Women's Association. You fund those groups that support you and you squeeze the ones that don't.

Indian Affairs is in a conflict of interest position and should not even be involved in developing any legislation or any initiatives that have to do with native people. Get them out of the picture. This was recommended before, in other reports and by RCAP.

There are clear solutions to the problems of economic dependency. These are solutions that have been recommended by previous reports to Parliament and to governments, including those by RCAP, Penner, Coolican, and Oberle. We've had so many reports; we've been studied to death. This is another example of this. Let's get on with the real issues.

I refer you to a four-pillar policy alternative to the current Gathering Strength policy of the federal government in volume 7, number 2 of our newsletter, pages 15 and 16. We do not need a first nations governance act or the other pieces of legislation that will follow.

We need a first nations-Canada relations act, which is the recommendation of RCAP. We need to solidify the relationship between aboriginal and non-aboriginal peoples with understanding from both sides before we start imposing more rules on native people. They will just rebel against those rules. It's been recommended over and over again.

We do not need more interference or coercion from INAC; we need a minister of state for aboriginal relations to negotiate renewed terms of our relationships. Again, this is a key recommendation of the royal commission.

We shouldn't negotiate our relationship with Indian Affairs; they control us. It's like negotiating the conditions of your release from prison with the warden if you're in jail. You set up a parole board to do that.

We do not need so-called modern-day treaties that further alienate us from our lands and our rights. We need an ombudsman, as was mentioned previously, reporting to Parliament to safeguard the spirit and intent of our treaties with the crown and to arbitrate disputes between ourselves and Canada. This is a key recommendation of the Penner report that's been ignored.

We do not need further interference from INAC in our electoral process. We need a closer working relationship between urban aboriginal organizations, such as friendship centres, and reserve communities to assist urban people to link with and participate in electoral processes in their own communities, as required under the Corbière Supreme Court decision. The friendship centres are well positioned to be that link.

We do not need more interference from INAC in developing or approving codes to guide accountability. We need aboriginal oversight structures based on the historic nation-to-nation approach, as proposed by RCAP, for example, the Ojibway and Cree nations across this land.

We do not need to move toward a formalizing of municipal types of governments under provincial control. We need autonomous, indigenous nations governance with strong and effective dispute resolution mechanisms based on the cultural norms and customs of the nation, as identified in the Harvard project on first nations in the United States.

º (1650)

I conclude by reminding the members of the standing committee about the history of the imposition of the Indian Act on the Six Nations of the Grand River territory. In 1924 the Government of Canada forcefully imposed the Indian Act and band council structure on that community, in spite of opposition from existing traditional community-based governments. The confrontation led to some protesters being shot to death by the RCMP. The community has never completely recovered from those events or from that imposition. Many people do not recognize the Indian Act. They recognize the traditional forms of governance.

There was not only opposition in Six Nations at that time; opposition was widespread across Canada. Today, the aboriginal opposition to the governance act, as well as the other proposed legislation, is widespread across Canada. I can attest to that--including Six Nations. To continue to ignore that opposition does not bode well for Canada, however we define or fund representative structures.

Imagine for a moment how much further we would be as a people, collectively, if you supported us instead of trying to tell us who we were and what our solutions were. You would stop spending huge amounts of time, energy, and funds on initiatives that only perpetuate colonialism. This would allow us to develop our own solutions to our problems, thereby increasing our accountability to our communities, and more importantly, strengthening our communities economically, socially, and culturally.

I have had to live with the Indian Act and its imposition. I wasn't born in 1924, when it was imposed on Six Nations, but I've had to live with the effects of it since then. We now have youth who will have to live under the imposition of the acts you're passing today.

I will pass the microphone to the youth delegate to talk about it from their perspective.

Ms. Jocelyn Formsma (President of the Aboriginal Youth Council, National Association of Friendship Centres): Thank you.

I'd like to thank my senator, Roger Obonsawin.

My name is Jocelyn Formsma. I'm the president of the National Association of Friendship Centres Aboriginal Youth Council. This aboriginal youth council is inclusive of all aboriginal peoples. We have Inuit representation, Métis representation, and both status and non-status first nations representatives sitting on our council. Currently, we have representation from all provinces and all regions, including the east and the north.

We try to make recommendations, be a kind of consultation body for the NAFC, and put forth youth issues. We strive to be the youth voice for urban aboriginal youth who are participating in friendship centres all over the country.

As a representative of my council, I am mandated to bring forth the concerns and issues of my membership. I don't know too much about the whole political scene with the First Nations Governance Act, and I don't want to; that's not my job. But I do know that at our last AGM, we had a workshop during our youth forum on the First Nations Governance Act. Out of 150 youth who were there from all across Canada, a very small percentage knew what the governance act was, or even that an act was going to be put into legislation. Even fewer of them knew what this act involved, what was in the act, and what it would mean to the first nations people.

We passed a resolution at our AGM that our people needed to know about this act and needed to be able to be informed of this act so they could make informed decisions on whether they could support it or not. We've done that, and we've tried to bring that information to our membership.

The youth I've talked to in my community don't feel they have the information. They don't understand what it is, and there's not a big trust between them and the government. They especially don't trust it when the government comes in and says “Trust us, we're trying to change things for the better” when they don't feel involved in the process; when they don't feel they've been included or properly consulted.

Everyone I've talked to feels they have not had ample input into this act and that it's being pushed upon them. The bottom line is that grassroots are saying they don't like it, and something else needs to take place in order for this to be accepted by the membership.

I guess that's my position on it as well. I'm for the grassroots youth and the grassroots communities. I feel they need to be involved, informed, and educated at every step of the way, and I just don't feel that has happened.

Thank you.

º (1655)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

To set the stage, I feel I should mention that this committee is not a committee of the government, it is not a committee of the minister, and it is not a committee of the Prime Minister. It is a committee of the House of Commons. So when people ask us who do we think we are, I say this committee is made up of representatives of five different political parties who are working as a team. We have been assigned a responsibility by the Speaker of the House. While we can talk about all the other issues, we have a bill before us. It has 59 clauses. We will eventually address each clause, one at a time.

The purpose of inviting witnesses who are experts in this field, which we believe all of you are, is to help us to do this work. This is the third day of public hearings. I'm having difficulty finding presentations addressing specific clauses, because this is all we can look at as a committee. So I'd like this to be clear, because there will be questions. We need help. We need the help of all witnesses to make this bill better, to make these clauses better. If we can improve on some or all of them, we will be very proud to have done a good job. We need everybody's help to do this.

We will have a five-minute round.

Will Mr. Pallister go first? You have seven minutes, because you're the official opposition.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Thank you very much for your presentations, Mr. Senator. I appreciate your comments, and I hear the deep frustration I know you feel. But as the committee chair has just tried to clarify, we're given the difficult task of trying to deal with what we've been given in the proposed legislation, and of trying to make it better.

Your suggestions take the form, I think, of suggesting a whole different approach—a sovereign recognition. This debate is ongoing in many parts of this country, but not one that I can engage you in right here. So I hope you respect this, and I hope you appreciate I want to do whatever I can to make sure this legislation does perhaps as little harm as possible.

There is no doubt that the governance models many first nations communities utilized historically were far better, at that time, than what we've seen since. I think this has been spoken of eloquently by you in your presentation.

When you speak of an ombudsman, this is an idea we've been promoting for some time as the official opposition, with the support of a number of native organizations. You're quite aware of this. We promote this idea to allow people to sense they have a voice that can be heard. It can be heard by this House. We'll continue to promote this idea. But I'm very concerned with this act proposing having many ombudsmen in each first nations community. We simply don't believe this can work.

Perhaps I'll just throw the ball back to you. Was there such a role in traditional communities? Would you just like to comment on this particular category? Certainly I look forward to learning from you if there is some precedent or example you could give us of how an ombudsman could better serve us, as opposed to the model the minister is advancing through this legislation.

» (1700)

Mr. Roger Obonsawin: There are numerous ways of addressing the question of traditional ombudsmen, if you will, whether it's in the Six Nations tradition, where they had faithkeepers ensuring that the norms and values of the community were maintained, or whether it's more recent models of community councils and alternative justice models. So there are all kinds of models that can be looked at.

You're quite right that the principle is not at the community level. The real debate is at the federal level. When are we going to address the real issues? This is where you need an ombudsman, because there are going to be conflicts between aboriginal communities and non-aboriginal communities. There are conflicts already.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Sure. There are conflicts among aboriginal communities themselves, as well—

Mr. Roger Obonsawin: And conflicts within aboriginal communities.

I would say from a national perspective, you need this unbiased opinion to go in and adjudicate. We are ending up in the courts all the time. It's costly and it's not getting us anywhere. It's just drifting us farther apart.

Mr. Brian Pallister: There is frustration for everyone involved.

If I could quickly.... I apologize for interrupting you, because I have a short time.

To go on to another issue, I've learned a bit more of the traditional ways in talking to a lot of the elders in the last few months. It's just a start, I suppose. With many of the nations, I'm told, the power was never concentrated in the way it is now. The Indian Act invoked a very different system from the traditional system.

I come from the plains, where powers were very decentralized and people were mobile. If they didn't agree with their leaders, they changed leaders. Right? Now, with this system, it's much harder to do this. I think one of the fundamental problems we face in this is that we're starting from here, when, if imagination could prevail, it would be better to start from back there, because we now have very concentrated powers. Many of the concerns I get from first nations community members, both on and off reserve, is that because power is so concentrated in the hands of very few people, they feel very powerless.

The minister asked the rhetorical question, “Surely this bill is better than nothing?” If the bill further strengthens the power of a few people and further marginalizes a great many more, the answer to this may not be as obvious as the minister thinks. I think there's some danger in this. I would like your feedback on this.

Mr. Roger Obonsawin: First of all, I'm not saying go back to some of the traditional models. I think the models to look at are the new emerging models. In looking at the legislation, my overall opinion is it's a corporate structure. These structures are not even working in non-aboriginal communities. In Toronto, for example, try to get more accountability from the City of Toronto. They're fighting on these issues. But on paper, it looks all very well and fine.

What you need are laws that really govern the norms of the community. This is where I see that work needs to be done. Like in—

Mr. Brian Pallister: Cross Lake.

Mr. Roger Obonsawin: Cross Lake. But they had to opt out of the Indian Act, and they'll probably have to opt out of this act in order to continue their structures. They have a trust council. The band administration doesn't even handle funds. They have to go to that trust council to get their moneys for travelling. So you separate the political service and everything.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Thank you.

He's going to cut me off, so I've got to quickly ask you about the decentralization of power into the hands of more people. This concerns us. We believe, fundamentally, that good governance can't come from top down; it's got to come from the people up. Do you agree with this?

Mr. Roger Obonsawin: Yes.

[Translation]

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

Mr. Claude Bachand: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First, I'd like to welcome the Aboriginal Friendship Centres. I think you play a very important role as an interface between the Whites and the natives. When I was a critic for Aboriginal Affairs, I toured many native friendship centres and I found that there was a very interesting atmosphere there because it was very open. Natives from all nations were welcomed but we also felt that they were very involved with the White community. That was proof that Whites and natives can get along.

On the other hand, at the time, there was very little funding. They were always running around looking for money. I remember that almost 95 per cent of the Department of Indians Affairs' budget went to natives on reserves but for the department, then, off-reserve natives almost didn't exist.

I do admit that I would have liked to know a bit more about what you think about aboriginal friendship centres, but nevertheless I do believe that your presentation was most interesting. As a member of the Bloc Québécois, you can understand that ideas of self-determination and self-government are something that interest me in the highest degree.

I've always felt, both in Quebec City and Ottawa, that as far as native self-determination is concerned the question is a bit of a taboo. Both in Quebec and in Canada people are afraid that we'd wind up with a Canada and a Quebec looking like pieces of Swiss cheese where the different native communities would be totally independent within a province or within Canada. I've heard those ideas expressed everywhere.

I've also heard Western first nations say that they only wanted to talk strictly about self-determination and not about self-government. They want to go back to their old ways of governing themselves as they always did.

On the other hand, the matter I want to raise with you is the one of self-determination. If you're totally independent from a country or a province, then you need a big enough land base to ensure your economic self-sufficiency. That's the whole problem.

I find that in Quebec City, they're starting to understand how to deal with the question of the Crees and the Innu. On the other hand, that's still self-government as opposed to self-determination.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on how important it is to be completely autonomous. The right to self-determination must go together with enough territory to ensure your self-sufficiency.

Within that framework, wouldn't be possible to have an aboriginal taxation system that could prove to be enough, a little like the Nisga'a have introduced taxation, in any case?

If you don't have time to answer my question today, I'd like to revisit the subject with you. I think it's a discussion that can't come to a conclusion within five minutes especially since I have already eaten up four of them.

» (1705)

The Chair: That won't be possible if you go on.

Mr. Claude Bachand: So go ahead, Mr. Obonsawin.

Mr. Roger Obonsawin: First, we couldn't present the report I referred to. It wasn't possible to distribute it. But I do hope to be able to send you the reports individually. The economist's report addresses that question and the matter of resources.

All governments in Canada have revenue coming from resources. We're trying to set up the government of a nation. They are our resources but we can't use them. So the taxes go to Canada or the provinces. We should have some jurisdiction over that. That's why we have to have legislation on the relations between the First Nations and Canada because otherwise there will be a lot of conflict. These are the matters we should be addressing. How are we going to all live together in Canada and agree amongst nations? To my mind, that is the question. The question is not whether we need more legislation for the aboriginals.

The Chair: Thank you.

[English]

Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you. I want to thank you both for a very thoughtful brief.

You opened your brief with a quote from Minister Nault saying “we stand at an historic turning point in our relationship with first nations”. I agree, except that I believe Minister Nault has set relations with first nations back about 50 years. He has demonstrated a unique capacity for offending and alienating the leadership of first nations throughout the country with his heavy-handed approach and the introduction of this bill.

I want to thank you for some of the specifics you've cited. You're the first presentation that has made mention of the risk of municipalization of first nations. I'd like to give you a chance to expand a little more on the risk of incorporation and the possibility of losing some of your holdings or equity if you are incorporated.

For instance, if you borrow money from a bank to build a sewage treatment plant and you default on the loan, they could seize the equity that may be the actual land base that you could risk losing. I'd like you to comment.

Also, because Bill C-7 doesn't do anything about implementing the recommendations of the royal commission, could you comment on how Bill C-7, some people say, infringes on aboriginal jurisdiction when it passes laws about government institutions, elections, etc.?

RCAP specifically cites areas of traditional aboriginal jurisdiction that many believe Bill C-7 steps on, tramples on, or trespasses on.

If you have time, could you talk about municipalization, the risk of incorporation, and areas of traditional jurisdiction that the Government of Canada has no right to pass laws on?

» (1710)

Mr. Roger Obonsawin: The difficulty in addressing municipalization strictly within the governance act context is limited. It's not only the governance act; it's when we get into the other legislation, such as the land management act. In combination, they're really moving toward the municipalization of reserves.

We know Nault has set it back to 1969, to the white paper. It's not Nault's agenda, it's still Prime Minister Chrétien's agenda. He's intent on getting it through. He's making the same mistake of doing things for Indians, not with them. Until he learns otherwise, we're never going to come to solutions to our problems.

That's what we have to address. The mindset is that if you do away with aboriginal treaty rights, the Indian problems are going to be solved. They'll become like us. We'll all be equals. Well, yes, we'll be equals without money and health care. That's not equality. Let's really talk about positions properly.

Was your other question on provincial jurisdiction?

Mr. Pat Martin: It was on aboriginal jurisdiction, as listed in RCAP, etc.

Mr. Roger Obonsawin: In effect, in the United States, where those nations have jurisdiction over taxation, for instance, there are good examples. They do have jurisdiction over taxation. They've been able to build their economies as a result because they have direct jurisdiction. It could be a zero base or it could be depending on transfer payments, but they have direct jurisdiction. Those nations are doing well. Those that don't have jurisdiction don't do well. It's a fact.

Those are the kinds of questions we need to look at. Do you have jurisdiction over your own resources and over taxation?

Let me point out that in Six Nations, where our office is, the sale of Sago cigarettes and cigarette tax was a major issue. Now Sago operates under federal regulations, even for exporting. Sago pays about $80 million a year in taxes to the federal government. What does Six Nations get for operating? They get $50 million a year. If the same money was going directly to Six Nations, you'd be saving money. We transfer it to the federal government and we get it back as hand-outs. Is that how we develop pride?

Encourage our businesses to contribute. Let's start thinking differently about the structures in the jurisdictions.

Mr. Pat Martin: That's a good point.

You mentioned the Cree Nation of Cross Lake. They now have an equity position with the NDP government for their next hydro-electric dam. Rather than get doled out or rationed a few job quotas, they'll own a third of the hydro dam. They will get revenue from every unit of hydro power sold from the dam. That's economic development.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Hubbard.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's possible we may share our five minutes.

First of all, senator, we get numerous complaints. Everyone complains that the Indian Act goes back to 1876, somewhere in there, and this is the 21st century.

The message you seem to be giving us is that it's going to be better to stay under the Indian Act than to look at this new governance bill. Is it your position that we should leave what's there alone, and continue for another 25 or 50 years under the Indian Act?

» (1715)

Mr. Roger Obonsawin: No. I'm saying that whatever you put in place, the communities will start going on their own anyway. They're going to ignore it; a big part of Six Nations have always ignored it.

If you look at the percentage of people who go into band elections where there are traditional conflicts, they are very small numbers, compared to the traditional systems of government. So I'm saying to go back. Whether it's a traditional or a modern-day government, it should be under the control of the communities.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: In Bill C-7 they talk about codes, and each community developing its own codes and methods of organizing; methods of electing chiefs and councils; and activities on the various lands they own. Does that not give enough latitude to enable them to...?

Mr. Roger Obonsawin: It gives them more latitude, but it doesn't address the basic problems. In the United States, when they were given more latitude to develop their own codes, they were much more accountable--as in Cross Lake. What is needed is an oversight, and I mentioned that.

As RCAP says, you can't have 610 nations with separate forms of government. It just won't work. They're too small. You look at a broader nation model, an umbrella of nations. The Ojibway Nation has a lot of reserves. That would be the oversight and would set the principles by which you would develop your accountability, your own internal works.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: When you state that position, do you think there's any aptitude out there to do it? Do the people want to do it--the Mi'kmaq in Atlantic Canada, or the Ojibway?

Mr. Roger Obonsawin: It's happening more and more, and the ones that are doing it are being penalized by the federal government.

You talk about the Mi'kmaq. The Acadia First Nation is doing that. They're being penalized by Revenue Canada. They're being told they can't operate that way. Cross Lake are being told by Indian Affairs they can't operate that way. But it's happening and it's going to grow.

If this legislation is passed and the subsequent legislation.... Maybe it would be a good thing if you passed it, because people are looking at the alternatives and they're going to say “We don't want this. We'll do our own.”

Mr. Charles Hubbard: When you talk of this, you say that codes are out there, codes have already been developed. These codes are available and presentable, and would be available to this committee and--

Mr. Roger Obonsawin: The Cross Lake First Nation--

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Are there others?

Mr. Roger Obonsawin: They're very well developed.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Do you feel those codes would fit, in terms of Bill C-7?

Mr. Roger Obonsawin: No, because the principles of Bill C-7 wouldn't allow that to happen.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: What principles of Bill C-7?

Mr. Roger Obonsawin: In Cross Lake--

Mr. Charles Hubbard: But what is there in the bill that would prevent some of the first nations from developing what you suggest?

Mr. Roger Obonsawin: It's a federal bill. It comes from somebody else's jurisdiction, and that's the problem. I'll give you an example. How can you accommodate the various kinds of structures within that bill?

In Cross Lake they have a youth council, a women's council, and an elder's council, and they all sit on the trust council with a Royal Trust representative. They have to administer the funds that come into that community. With Bill C-7, Indian Affairs is going to come back and say right away, “That doesn't fit under this legislation. You haven't made accommodations for that kind of structure.” It doesn't give the flexibility to do those things, based on community norms.

It's not an issue of accountability. The band council can't even spend money without going to that trust council. So that's really accountability.

» (1720)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We have time for a two-minute round.

Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I have to ask Mr. Obonsawin some rapid-fire questions here, because I'm intrigued with his differentiation between the bands and the first nations.

Cross Lake, for example, would have how many band members, roughly?

Mr. Roger Obonsawin: I forget. It's over 300, in that area.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Band members?

Mr. Roger Obonsawin: Yes.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: And how many families? How many different names would there be?

Mr. Roger Obonsawin: I don't know. I'm more familiar with Six Nations, which has a membership of 21,000. They have a cultural tradition also.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I guess what I'm getting at is that I find, as I talk to good aboriginal people across the country, the struggle they have is separating the administration from the political, especially when it's small, like a band. It's not even a first nation in the fact that there are other bands forming that first nation, but separate, or some distance or miles removed from them. So how do you do that? Do we need to go to a larger model of a first nation as opposed to a band, some 600 different regimes?

Mr. Roger Obonsawin: Changing the name of a reserve to a first nation doesn't make it a nation. That's a misnomer. The nation is the Ojibway Nation. They develop the structures that are based on cultural norms of the Ojibway. The bands have become an administrative arm under that, within the community, to deliver programs and services. So you do separate the two. So you do have to look at separation, but you can't look at it from a small--as you say, Cross Lake--perspective.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: So you're saying you'd have bands to do the administration and the political, try to do the political all at that same level, band and political, one and the same. It seems that's where some of the tangle gets to be.

Mr. Roger Obonsawin: That's right, and also in economic development. The band gets too involved in economic development, and then they destroy the aboriginal entrepreneur.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: So you would have that a collaborative done by a number of bands forming a first nation.

Mr. Roger Obonsawin: That's a possibility, but that's what the recommendation of the royal commission was saying. That has been disregarded by Minister Nault.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Bachand.

Mr. Claude Bachand: Mr. Chairman, I must say that there really are 600 communities, but I think that the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples also recognized 50 to 60 nations in Canada, including, for instance, the Quebec Cree, the Quebec Innu or the Micmac from Eastern Canada. These are nations. If I understand you correctly, when it comes to setting up a government, it is much easier to do it nation-by-nation than to simply proceed band-by-band, because there are 600 of them, which really complicates things.

Another thing I always noticed with regard to the aboriginal issue—tell me if it is still the same today—, is that when the issue of amending the Indian Act is raised, the aboriginals object, because in their view, as long as they have not achieved self-government or self-determination, it is the only protection they have.

I would like to know if things are still that way. This is the basic reason why aboriginals object to modernizing an act to which they have never consented and which they perceive as something very colonialist. But in the meantime, this is the only protection they have, and as long as there are no negotiations based on nations and recognizing that they have enough economic self-sufficiency and enough self-government, they want to keep the Indian Act for their protection.

Are things still that way?

Mr. Roger Obonsawin: Yes, it is still that way, because it is the only protection we have.

Mr. Claude Bachand: All right.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Reed.

Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator, you present an expert and correct vision of where the nations want to go. I just want to ask you a simple question about the value of this bill. Can it be seen as a means of getting there from here?

Mr. Roger Obonsawin: I don't see how.

Mr. Julian Reed: No?

Mr. Roger Obonsawin: First of all, we're spending a lot of time, energy, and money on this legislation.

We had an economic analysis. There are going to be discussions on the Financial Institutions Act. We're stopping those nations from getting their credit unions in, without legislation. You don't need legislation to do all these things. All the same, you need the proper governance structures before you get into that.

Well, why? You can do those things without having to go through federal structures--other people do it--and go for your own bond rating. So it's just putting another structure in place that's really not necessary. It's going to hinder the development of it, not help it, the way it's structured now.

» (1725)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Obonsawin and Ms. Formsma. We invite you to make closing remarks. We have about five minutes left.

Mr. Roger Obonsawin: I'll take two minutes and leave three minutes for the youth.

I appreciate your comments, Mr. Chair, that this committee's role is not Parliament's role. My concern, and when I was addressing the questions of what you were doing, is about the collective. Eventually it is going to go to Parliament. I've accepted the fact that it's going to be passed, quite frankly. We're now preparing strategies for developing the alternatives without Parliament's interference. That's what I was talking about, the youth, the collective, this Parliament. It's going to pass. I've accepted it. Even coming here I feel that maybe I'll enlighten a few people, but we're going to get on with the job anyway.

That's all the comment I have to make, but I do thank you for the time.

There is more information available. We hadn't translated them into French, so we couldn't distribute the newsletters. We have those available, if you'd like them.

The Chair: Before you go on, Ms. Formsma.... Any documents that you offered we really would like to have. If you present them to the clerk or mail them to her, she will have them translated and distributed to all members.

Mr. Roger Obonsawin: I should point out that the Fred Lazar report is being translated, but I couldn't get it in time for this. So when we have the French version of those, I will also make that available.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Ms. Formsma.

Ms. Jocelyn Formsma: All I'd like to say is that it's very exciting for me to be here, as a young person. I'm learning so much about government processes and lobbying and what not. Being a young person, I have to say, it's very, very important for me to be learning these things.

I'd really like to challenge you guys to utilize the youth resources that are out there and bring youth to the table whenever you can. Things like this are very good experience, and I know in another five or ten years from now, I'm going to have a leg up on a lot of my colleagues because I already have the knowledge of these processes.

So thank you for having me today, and I look forward to coming back sometime in the near future.

The Chair: Thank you very much. You represent your members very well. It won't take ten years for you to become an expert; you're already there.

Colleagues, we will suspend for three minutes, and then we'll go in camera for future business.