AANR Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, February 4, 2003

¹

1530

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

Professor Larry Chartrand (Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa)

The Chair

Prof. Larry Chartrand

The Chair

Prof. Larry Chartrand

¹

1535

¹

1540

¹

1545

¹

1550

¹

1555

The Chair

Prof. Larry Chartrand

The Chair

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

Prof. Larry Chartrand

Mr. Brian Pallister

Prof. Larry Chartrand

º

1600

Mr. Brian Pallister

Prof. Larry Chartrand

Mr. Brian Pallister

Prof. Larry Chartrand

Mr. Brian Pallister

Prof. Larry Chartrand

º

1605

Mr. Brian Pallister

Prof. Larry Chartrand

Mr. Brian Pallister

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.)

Prof. Larry Chartrand

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Prof. Larry Chartrand

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Prof. Larry Chartrand

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Prof. Larry Chartrand

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Prof. Larry Chartrand

Mr. Charles Hubbard

º

1610

Prof. Larry Chartrand

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Prof. Larry Chartrand

The Chair

Mr. Brian Pallister

Prof. Larry Chartrand

Mr. Brian Pallister

Prof. Larry Chartrand

º

1615

Mr. Brian Pallister

Prof. Larry Chartrand

Mr. Brian Pallister

Prof. Larry Chartrand

Mr. Brian Pallister

Prof. Larry Chartrand

Mr. Brian Pallister

Prof. Larry Chartrand

Mr. Brian Pallister

Prof. Larry Chartrand

Mr. Brian Pallister

Prof. Larry Chartrand

Mr. Brian Pallister

The Chair

Prof. Larry Chartrand

Mr. Brian Pallister

Prof. Larry Chartrand

Mr. Brian Pallister

The Chair

Mr. Brian Pallister

The Chair

Mr. Brian Pallister

The Chair

Prof. Larry Chartrand

Mr. Brian Pallister

The Chair

Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.)

Prof. Larry Chartrand

Mr. John Godfrey

Prof. Larry Chartrand

º

1620

Mr. John Godfrey

Prof. Larry Chartrand

Mr. John Godfrey

The Chair

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

Prof. Larry Chartrand

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

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

Prof. Larry Chartrand

The Chair

Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.)

Prof. Larry Chartrand

º

1625

The Chair

Prof. Larry Chartrand

The Chair

Prof. Larry Chartrand

The Chair

Grand Chief Gary Merasty (Prince Albert Grand Council)

º

1630

º

1635

º

1640

The Chair

º

1645

Mr. Brian Pallister

Grand Chief Gary Merasty

Mr. Brian Pallister

Grand Chief Gary Merasty

Mr. Brian Pallister

º

1650

Grand Chief Gary Merasty

Mr. Brian Pallister

Grand Chief Gary Merasty

Chief Marcel Head (Shoal Lake Cree Nation)

The Chair

Mr. John Godfrey

º

1655

Grand Chief Gary Merasty

Mr. John Godfrey

Grand Chief Gary Merasty

Mr. John Godfrey

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Grand Chief Gary Merasty

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Grand Chief Gary Merasty

»

1700

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Grand Chief Gary Merasty

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Grand Chief Gary Merasty

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Grand Chief Gary Merasty

»

1705

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Grand Chief Gary Merasty

Mr. Charles Hubbard

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Grand Chief Gary Merasty

»

1710

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Grand Chief Gary Merasty

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Grand Chief Gary Merasty

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Grand Chief Gary Merasty

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Grand Chief Gary Merasty

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Grand Chief Gary Merasty

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Brian Pallister

»

1715

Grand Chief Gary Merasty

Mr. Brian Pallister

Grand Chief Gary Merasty

Mr. Brian Pallister

Grand Chief Gary Merasty

The Chair

Ms. Anita Neville

»

1720

Grand Chief Gary Merasty

Ms. Anita Neville

Grand Chief Gary Merasty

Ms. Anita Neville

Grand Chief Gary Merasty

Ms. Anita Neville

Grand Chief Gary Merasty

Ms. Anita Neville

Grand Chief Gary Merasty

Ms. Anita Neville

The Chair

Grand Chief Gary Merasty

»

1725

Chief Marcel Head

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources

---

NUMBER 021

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, February 4, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹  (1530)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.)): We'll resume public hearings on Bill C-7, An Act respecting leadership selection, administration and accountability of Indian bands, and to make related amendments to other Acts.

    We're pleased to welcome, from the University of Ottawa law faculty, Professor Larry Chartrand. Welcome. We invite you to make your presentation, which will be followed by questions and answers from members.

    Professor Chartrand.

    Professor Larry Chartrand (Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa): Thank you for inviting me.

    I'd like to begin by pointing out that I have a PowerPoint presentation, which is basically an outline of the written submission I provided earlier. I apologize for not handing in that written submission earlier or having it translated into French. I suspect they didn't translate it in time, because I handed it in yesterday. I have the PowerPoint and then I have the written submission.

    The Chair: Unless there is a complaint from one of the members, we will proceed in English. I look around the table. I don't expect at this point to have objections.

    Prof. Larry Chartrand: Thank you.

    I'd like to begin by pointing out that the title of this presentation is “On The Wrong Road”. I begin by making the point that international human rights law, domestic constitutional law, and morality do not allow Parliament to unilaterally act or enact legislation that has an impact of the nature contained in Bill C-7.

    The first proposition is that for Parliament to be able to pass this kind of legislation, it would need substantial amendment. When I say substantial amendment, I mean the bill has to be basically struck out, and a new bill in the nature of an aboriginal nation recognition act would be the appropriate alternative.

    Short of that, however, a less desirable alternative would be to ensure that the First Nations Governance Act has an opt-in clause, so that first nations have the choice of deciding whether to come under the FNGA.

    There are a number of reasons why Parliament cannot act unilaterally in enacting this bill. I'll briefly go through each one of these cases.

    The Chair: If I may, I should mention that the role of this committee is to deal with the bill that has been assigned to us by the House of Commons. We will not be even debating whether the government has the right to pass laws or not; that is a job for the Speaker of the House to resolve. But I will allow all the comments, because you also added that there's another possible solution: an opt-in clause.

    Prof. Larry Chartrand: My comments relate to both alternatives.

    The first problem is that any unilateral action here would be inconsistent with the principle of nation-to-nation relationships. It would be inconsistent with the inherent right to self-government. It would be inconsistent with the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. It would be inconsistent with recommendations of the Senate of Canada when it adopted the report tabled in February 2000 by Senator Charlie Watt regarding the self-governance study. It would be inconsistent with international human rights principles. Finally and probably most importantly, it would be inconsistent with the fiduciary obligations of the Crown to aboriginal peoples.

    In terms of the nation-to-nation relationship, any unilateral action is inconsistent with the principle of reconciliation that is identified as the preferred interpretation of section 35 of the Constitution. Reconciliation, according to Chief Justice Lamer on Delgamuukw, would ideally be achieved through negotiation. Bill C-7, if it is a unilaterally imposed framework on first nations, is inconsistent with that vision of reconciliation.

    Furthermore, unilateral action is inconsistent with the history of treaty-making with aboriginal nations. Bill C-7 would interfere with the right to governance protected in existed treaties. Treaties cannot be unilaterally amended, and thus Bill C-7, as currently drafted, would be in violation of section 35 without the consent of treaty first nations. That's one problem in terms of the unilateral action proposed.

    The second problem is that it's in violation of the inherent right to self-government. First nations possess the inherent right to self-government. This is reflected in Canadian aboriginal law, in international human rights instruments, and in international customary law. For example, just as Justice Williamson said on page 37 of the Campbell decision, the right to self-government continued after the decision of sovereignty by the Crown, although it is diminished to now include matters only of concern to the internal affairs of first nations. The second point is that to the extent the First Nations Governance Act is understood as providing delegated authority to first nations, it is inconsistent with inherent right.

    In terms of the recommendations of the royal commission, amending the Indian Act is not an option. The bill here is essentially an amendment to the Indian Act. The preferred route would be the creation of an aboriginal nation recognition act, which according to the royal commission would set out broad principles and a process for consensual negotiations on aboriginal governance.

    The Senate standing committee report acknowledged that self-government is an inherent right of aboriginal peoples. It recommended the creation of a broad statutory framework for negotiations. It adopted recommendations consistent with international principles of human rights pertaining to indigenous peoples' governance. The very existence of Bill C-7, however, seems to suggest that Minister Nault and the House of Commons are not much concerned with the principles of international law.

    An interesting procedural point related to the Senate committee report was that it adopted a decision-making process that included aboriginal representation as an integral part of the Senate committee during their deliberations for this study. I'm wondering if this House committee has considered the option of something along those lines as well.

¹  (1535)  

    In terms of international principles, article 20 of the Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples states:

    

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

    Many expert international legal scholars are of the view that the principles in this declaration are now a part of international customary law. As you know, Canada is bound by international customary law, and likewise this principle would be a binding principle on Canada.

    More importantly, it doesn't even matter if that's the case, because the domestic law of the Constitution, as the fiduciary duty is understood to reflect section 35 and its concerns, also requires this principle to be upheld.

    Regarding the fiduciary duty, if the First Nations Governance Act continues without an opt-in clause, it would continue to be a breach of the Crown's fiduciary obligation, the point being that when the Indian Act was first amended to replace traditional governments with band council elected governments, the interests of the first nations were not served.

    Racist underpinnings, of course—thinking that the traditional governments were not civilized enough—were the rationale for that imposition. Thus a First Nations Governance Act that continues to assume the powers being enacted for bands are delegated powers and are essentially arms of the federal government would simply be a continuing breach of that fiduciary obligation.

    One might say that doesn't matter, that the federal government can act unilaterally because of the Sparrow justification test and consultation. All that's required is consultation; we don't need the full consent of the first nations affected. That would not satisfy the test set out by Chief Justice Lamer, though.

    Chief Justice Lamer, in the Delgamuukw case, said consultation in most cases “will be significantly deeper than mere consultation”. He also stated that in some cases the full consent of the aboriginal nations is required. And it's a continuum from mere consultation to full consent. The question we have to ask here is where does the First Nations Governance Act lie, in terms of the interests it affects belonging to first nations, to warrant placement on that continuum.

    Consent is required, and the reason is this: are the changes in the First Nations Governance Act only minor, thus allowing the minister to only have to “consult”, according to the Delgamuukw case from the Supreme Court of Canada, or are the changes of such magnitude in total—leadership selection, law-making powers, band management, financial administration, enforcement powers, etc.—that consultation will require nothing short of full consent by first nations?

    I think the answer here is obvious, and if Parliament goes ahead unilaterally without an opt-in clause, they will be in breach of this principle of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Delgamuukw decision.

    That leaves us asking, what are our options? We either abandon the First Nations Governance Act and create an acceptable aboriginal nations recognition act and/or, at a minimum, ensure that the First Nations Governance Act has an opt-in clause.

    Now, the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, for example—they presented last week, I believe—do have model aboriginal nations recognition legislation, and I'm sure they'd be happy to share it with Parliament. It's already been drafted; it's ready to go. It would save some time.

¹  (1540)  

    But if that's not the option, as you mentioned, Mr. Chair, an opt-in clause is the preferred option. An opt-in clause is important, and a voluntary approach to this legislation is necessary. You don't need to enforce it on first nations people. The objectives the First Nations Governance Act wants to achieve, such as leadership, accountability, etc., are all objectives that are principles of good governance that any government would want to uphold.

    On page nine of my written submission, I go on to say that to the extent that these principles are not currently reflected in first nations governance, they can be encouraged by the public and other governments to adopt them. However, the choice to adopt and, where necessary, to modify them to be consistent with first nations' values is up to each first nation to decide.

    Incentive programs, for example, such as a financial management and accreditation program, to encourage first nations authorities to be more accountable and transparent in their fiscal management would likely result in more improvement. These types of incentives, with of course the necessary training to ensure capacity to perform them, would be more welcome than unilateral imposition of standards. There's already marked resistance to the First Nations Governance Act from aboriginal peoples in the country, and if it's ultimately enacted, there will be considerable resistance in first nations communities. Compliance will not come easily, if at all.

    The letter of the law may be present, but means of avoidance will be pursued--and probably will pursued vigorously. It may be possible to force technical compliance in some matters, but if there is resistance, the least possible, most minimal effort will be undertaken. There will be no effort to go beyond the minimum. Progress will be thwarted by the perceived need to react to the unwelcomed imposition of standards and practices. Lost will be the desire to embrace such reforms for the positive outcomes they can achieve for effective good governance.

    So that's my main point. If this bill is legislated with an opt-in clause, it's unconstitutional, end of story. Having said that, if this committee does amend and put in an opt-in clause, there are a few other concerns I have, looking at the First Nations Governance Act, that probably should be addressed.

    I have identified three concerns. I have also read a number of other submissions that look at more specific provisions that might violate the constitutional provisions or the charter. I do want to focus on just one for the moment, and that's paragraph 17(1)(a) of the proposed legislation.

    It says:

the protection and conservation of natural resources within the band's reserve and the disposition for personal and commercial use of those resources, other than wildlife, fish or resources that can only be disposed of pursuant to a surrender under the Indian Act;

    There are some serious problems with that provision. If you are limiting first nations from being able to sell wildlife such as fish commercially, it would be a violation of the concept of aboriginal title that is understood to exist on Indian reserve land.

    First of all, you have to realize that the Supreme Court of Canada has already acknowledged an aboriginal right to commercially harvest natural resources such as fish in the Gladstone case. So the provision is already in breach of an existing precedent.

¹  (1545)  

    Secondly, the interest of a first nation in its reserved lands is a proprietary interest, and that includes all the natural resources on the land. Because it's a sui generis proprietary interest, a first nation can dispose of its resources for personal or commercial purposes so long as it does not threaten the continued existence of the land as it was used when sovereignty was asserted. A number of scholars have identified this as a concern, and Professor Kent McNeil, in his book, also identifies this as a concern.

    The other point I want to talk a bit about is the proposed amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act, to repeal the exemption clause. I think that is a valuable amendment to pursue. The only problem is that it shouldn't just be restricted to first nation band councils; it should also include the actions of private citizens who are providing goods and services on the reserve. The reason I say that is that it's not at all clear the extent to which provincial human rights legislation applies to Indian reserves.

    In my written submissions, I identified one particular case that raises concern in this regard. That's the case of Berg v. Derrickson. She went to the British Columbia Human Rights Commission on the grounds that she was being discriminated against because of age. She couldn't take up residence in a trailer park that was reserved for people 45 years of age and older. The British Columbia Human Rights Commission denied jurisdiction. They said this was a matter of federal jurisdiction because the issue involved the use of land. When you involve the use of land, you all know that the provinces are excluded, because it's a core part of the federal jurisdiction.

    Ms. Berg had already tried to go to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, but they refused to hear her case, because they said the matter is of provincial jurisdiction on the grounds that you're dealing with a private matter, a complaint against somebody who has a trailer park, and it should be within provincial jurisdiction. So Ms. Berg was denied justice; in fact, she wasn't even allowed to have justice hear her case. She fell through a legislative hole that's pretty big.

    I'm sure that's not the only case where the Canadian Human Rights Commission is going to deny jurisdiction because it thinks the provinces have jurisdiction. We can solve this problem and make sure everybody has access to the Human Rights Commission by making sure the amendment applies not only to band council governments, but also to private citizens operating in a reserve as well.

    Another problem with the Canadian Human Rights Commission repeal that I think has been identified by some other presenters is the fact that the balancing provision of needs and aspirations is too broadly worded. Any of a host of reasons could be given by band councils to justify infringing on a fundamental human right, if that kind of language continues to exist as it does in the proposed amendment. We probably want to be able to tailor the language a lot more specifically so that just the interests that band councils are concerned with are the interests that can justify an infringement of a human right.

    In the Charlottetown accord, when they were going to amend section 25 of the charter, which is in similar ways trying to achieve a balance between charter interest and band collective interest, they proposed language that would be tailored to more accurately and more specifically balance the needs of first nations in this area, language on page 11 that says:

nothing in the Charter abrogates or derogates from Aboriginal, treaty or other rights of Aboriginal peoples, and in particular any rights or freedoms relating to the exercise or protection of their languages, cultures or traditions.

¹  (1550)  

    Instead of “needs and aspirations”, if we put in a clause that's more in line with what first nations are concerned with in terms of their collective interests, like protecting language, culture, and traditions, I think the provision will be more workable. I think bands will know what they can do to protect their cultural and collective interests. Individuals will be more aware of when their interests may be trumped by the collective interests of the reserve.

    My final point in terms of specific issues is the need for an accountability mechanism in the federal government. I know my colleague Brad Morris--if he hasn't already presented, he will do--has also addressed this concern.

    On page 12 of the written submission, he has identified the fact that it's somewhat ironic that we're so concerned with the accountability of band councils to their membership, when there is no parallel accountability mechanism that the federal government has to ensure it is accountable to first nations, collectively or individually. There is no accountability mechanism for first nations individual communities to complain about a decision by a federal officer or authority that impacts on their interests.

    All provinces have ombudsmen. The federal government doesn't have a federal ombudsman. It might be an option, but we don't have one. First nations are left with either the courts or the very limited institutions that exist, such as the Indian Claims Commission.

    There's a huge gap there in terms of an accountability mechanism that first nations need to go to and that the federal government needs to implement. I think if we want to ensure that accountability principles are adopted by first nations, it's probably important for the federal government to look to its own doorstep, think about the accountability to first nations, and make sure they have the mechanisms to provide redress for first nations.

¹  (1555)  

    The Chair: Could we end there?

    Prof. Larry Chartrand: Those are my submissions. If there are any questions, I'd be happy to entertain any questions.

    The Chair: Thank you very much. I wanted to assure myself that there would be time for questions.

    We'll start with Mr. Pallister. You have nine minutes.

    Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, sir. I appreciate your presentation.

    We've been suggesting the idea of a national ombudsman for some time. We don't believe that the concept of a chief-appointed redress officer on most first nations communities would work at all well. I'm pleased to hear you echo those concerns.

    You also make mention here of the possibility of setting up another arm of the Human Rights Commission to deal specifically with aboriginal concerns. Could the model also work, though, for an ombudsman's office that would deal with them as the first threshold?

    The need would be very great, it seems to me, for there to be a good understanding of culture, tradition, aboriginal heritage, and so on, to put this into proper context. Is that something you see that might work?

    Prof. Larry Chartrand: Yes. I think there may be a need for that kind of a broadly mandated and national institute, whether you call it an ombudsman's office or not. It's a way for first nations to get redress if the band council decision is going against their interests. It may be a human rights interest that's at stake, but it may be something less so, somewhat like the First Nations Governance Act anticipates--

    Mr. Brian Pallister: Election disputes.

    Prof. Larry Chartrand: Election disputes, that's right. If there is one broadly mandated institute with representation from first nations, that may be a desirable option. You could catch a broader array of potential disputes.

    The only problem with that is the diversity of aboriginal communities across Canada. One national institute may not meet the needs of that diversity. I already know that there are some first nations actually starting to appoint people, anticipating that they'll be the ones to resolve the disputes.

    More thought needs to go into it. Certainly, first nations have to think about it more and consult more on that issue.

º  (1600)  

    Mr. Brian Pallister: You've hit on an issue we've touched on with other witnesses as well, which is--I don't know if “dichotomy” is the right word--on the one hand, respecting aboriginal culture, traditions, and so on, and on the other hand, wanting to stand strong for a certain level of Canadian human rights that applies to all citizens, whether aboriginal or non-aboriginal. This is the issue that has come to our attention: how, on the one hand, do you respect traditions that may differentiate on the basis of sex in a traditional aboriginal culture, community, or nation, whatever word we choose to use, and, on the other hand, say, wait a second, that's not right in the context of what we feel are broadly held Canadian values? How can we have it both ways?

    Prof. Larry Chartrand: I think there are a couple of points to be made on that. The first one is that first nations as governments are influenced by general human rights trends, just as other governments are. First nations evolve, just like any other society can evolve, and their customs, traditions, and values will evolve. It just means we need to ensure that fundamental human rights are acknowledged. But there is a need as well to ensure that the autonomy of first nations is not interfered with in that process.

    In terms of sexual discrimination issues--

    Mr. Brian Pallister: Sorry to interrupt, Larry. So it's a matter of which you feel trumps the other. If you feel the primary concern is to show respect for the nation, then you will let the rights of the individual person within that collective be overridden or respected to a lesser degree. So we have to choose which one we feel is more essential or more important. Is that right?

    Prof. Larry Chartrand: That's right. If we're going to respect first nations as autonomous nations, we need to allow that balancing process to take place from their perspective. They've already agreed in subsection 35(4) of the Constitution that there won't be any discrimination based on sex. They were party to that amendment during the constitutional talks.

    Mr. Brian Pallister: In reference to your point about that not being a factor, this proposal says something to the effect that we have to pay attention to the aboriginal culture, traditions, and so on, except for this gender equality thing. But isn't there another issue--I think the word is “intersectionality”, or something like that--when you're proving before a human rights commission that your rights have been violated? For a woman to prove that her rights have been violated solely on the basis of her being a woman is very difficult. Other issues may well be used as a reason for her rights not being granted to her.

    I appreciate your expressing your concerns about the interpretative clause. I certainly share them. But I'm not entirely sure that your proposed amendment would actually address the concern I have about women's equality rights. It says that we must respect traditions, but traditionally we didn't respect women. Respecting the traditions of someone else who doesn't isn't, it seems to me, a thoughtful approach.

    Prof. Larry Chartrand: All I can say is that there would be a problem for first nations to justify grounds based on sexual discrimination as the Constitution currently exists with the provision in subsection 35(4).

    In terms of a human rights commission dealing with the same issue, I think they would have to be very careful to understand how intersectionality works and to make sure that the grounds that are the basis of the discrimination aren't the sexual discrimination grounds. Sometimes you can't narrowly look at it from that perspective. That's a decision a human rights commission would have to grapple with in trying to come up with a remedy that ensures protection but doesn't go too far.

º  (1605)  

    Mr. Brian Pallister: The Canadian Human Rights Commission has some well-publicized problems right now in dealing with backlogs, time delays, resources, etc. In dumping this additional responsibility onto a rather difficult and challenged bureaucracy, I'm not sure how well it would serve the need of aboriginal people to have their rights protected. Do you have any concerns about that?

    Prof. Larry Chartrand: That's one of the reasons I suggested that a separate division or a separate human rights commission devoted to aboriginal concerns should be created. Alternatively, a more preferred approach would be that more broadly mandated institution of accountability.

    Mr. Brian Pallister: Thanks for that suggestion.

    The Chair: Mr. Hubbard.

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

    Good afternoon, Professor Chartrand.

    Mr. Pallister and I guess all of us are taken up with the words “government”, “self-government”, “constitutions”, and “human rights legislation”. It's a very broad field.

    In terms of your own work, you're a professor at Ottawa University. What is your speciality?

    Prof. Larry Chartrand: It's aboriginal law.

    Mr. Charles Hubbard: Is the presentation you made today from Professor Chartrand, or does it represent the law faculty of the University of Ottawa?

    Prof. Larry Chartrand: The view represents my own interpretation of aboriginal law and international principles as they'd be applied to implementing the First Nations Governance Act. I've tried to show that my views are not a lone voice in the woods. In fact, many legal scholars would make the same point, I'm sure.

    Mr. Charles Hubbard: The word “government” is a big word and has a lot of meanings because we have all kinds of governments. You have the federal government, provincial governments, municipal governments, church governments, and all that. How would you define government?

    Prof. Larry Chartrand: It is the institution where the political voice of the community becomes manifest in day-to-day affairs. If we use any more specific definition, you start getting into the kinds of problems you're alluding to.

    Mr. Charles Hubbard: A government would have a constitution or a code by which it existed. If you go one step forward, you get this word “self-government”.

    How would you distinguish between government and self-government?

    Prof. Larry Chartrand: I think they're basically one and the same, except the term “self-government” has been used in the concept of aboriginal law because of the idea that for the longest time in history the Indian Act was imposed. Government has been forced on first nations and aboriginal peoples.

    When the movement was afoot on how to increase our autonomy, the idea that we wanted to be self-governing arose out of that context. It was in opposition to another body imposing government on aboriginal peoples.

    Mr. Charles Hubbard: So would you call the provincial government or the city government here in Ottawa self-government?

    Prof. Larry Chartrand: Yes. The people comprising the federal government are self-governing. There's no other organization imposing a government structure.

    Mr. Charles Hubbard: At the time of Confederation there were no municipal governments here in the province of Ontario. I'm not sure that they ever defined themselves as self-governments because they owe their existence to another form of government.

    In aboriginal self-government we refer to the Creator. In other words, we go back to the Creator, who looked over the people for thousands of years. I'm a little confused by how you define government and self-government. In your presentation here you say our federal government should not attempt to impose regulations or codes, the need for regulations or codes, or a form of governance upon another level of government.

    So what is the solution to the problem you're trying to create for our committee? What solution would you give to our chair and our committee in terms of what government is and who is responsible for government?

º  (1610)  

    Prof. Larry Chartrand: The preferred solution, in my opinion, would be based on the substantive recommendations that were put forth in the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, views that have been maintained by international rapporteurs dealing with treaties and treaty rights, views that were put forth by the Senate committee in its report, which also required that you implement a statutory framework that is basically a means to implement a process for negotiation of governance. You don't predetermine what government is going to look like and what principles and values first nations will have to comply with; you allow for nations to negotiate with the federal government based on their diversity and their needs, and you have a general national framework for achieving that.

    It can be fairly simple or it can be fairly complex. The simpler the better, I would argue. One means of doing this is the recommended aboriginal nation recognition act, a process, by the way, which the United States has been implementing since the 1970s. It has American tribal recognition legislation. Once a tribe satisfies that process, the government is required to negotiate fiscal arrangements and other jurisdictional issues.

    The Chair: You still have 45 seconds.

    Mr. Charles Hubbard: Now you're into another word that we haven't used here very much, which is “tribe”. In terms of Gathering Strength, in terms of various groups of bands or first nations across the country, could you just explain the word “tribe” in terms of the American approach or how you see this word?

    Prof. Larry Chartrand: The American approach tends to use the word “tribe”. It has a historical use going back to the Worcester and M'Intosh decisions, where Justice Marshall recognized the inherent sovereignty of American tribes in the United States. The collective organization that has the autonomy of an aboriginal community is called the tribe in the United States.

    You could use “tribe” to describe traditional nations in Canada, although the term is no longer preferred. Nation is the preferred term. Nation and tribe are almost equivalent, but it depends on the internal laws and constitutions of the aboriginal people concerned, how they are politically organized.

    The Chair: Mr. Pallister, you have four minutes.

    Mr. Brian Pallister: Through the Indian Act we kind of screwed up the previous organizational structure. I think that's pretty clear. But now we have 600-plus communities--not first nations, but communities--comprising, according to RCAP, about 50 or 60 first nations. Putting that back together again would be a momentous struggle. This bill doesn't propose to do that. It proposes that we adopt 600 different code systems, 600 different enforcement mechanisms, 600 different ombudsmen, and so on.

    You're a smart guy. You've studied this stuff for a long time. Can you propose to us a model that would cost more and be less effective than the one that's being proposed by this bill?

    Prof. Larry Chartrand: One that would cost more?

    Mr. Brian Pallister: Can you think of anything in your vast experience that would cost more and be less effective than what's proposed here in this act?

    Prof. Larry Chartrand: That would be very challenging.

º  (1615)  

    Mr. Brian Pallister: Yes, it would, wouldn't it?

    One that would work less well to protect the aboriginal peoples' rights, to make sure that intimidation and excessive power--the differentiation between the power of chiefs and the power of individuals on reserves--didn't grow larger and the gap didn't get bigger...don't you think this poses more of a threat?

    The minister and some of his supporters are now saying that we have to do this incrementally, we have to make a few little changes because we can't make the big ones, so this is better than the status quo. If the status quo were one out of ten, what would this be?

    Prof. Larry Chartrand: One out of ten--

    Mr. Brian Pallister: If you rated it, ten being the best, and the status quo one out of ten, what do you think the enactment of this would do? What score out of ten would you give the society that Canadians and aboriginal Canadians would live in three to five years from now with the enactment of this?

    Prof. Larry Chartrand: This might surprise you, but I would probably give it a six or a seven.

    Mr. Brian Pallister: Why?

    Prof. Larry Chartrand: Just because there are actually--

    Mr. Brian Pallister: You're not a lawyer, are you?

    Prof. Larry Chartrand: No.

    Mr. Brian Pallister: You're not hoping to make a lot of money from the protests that will ensue as a consequence of this?

    Prof. Larry Chartrand: No, no, I don't practise.

    Mr. Brian Pallister: You don't have a lot of friends who are lawyers, do you, in litigation?

    Prof. Larry Chartrand: Unfortunately, yes.

    Mr. Brian Pallister: You're a law guy. I'm just asking.

    The Chair: Well, let him answer.

    Prof. Larry Chartrand: There are actually some very good things in the First Nations Governance Act.

    Mr. Brian Pallister: Would you please point out the three that are good, so we can edit out the rest?

    Prof. Larry Chartrand: One of them is the increased transparency of band councils and the need to have their laws and financial statements posted in a registry so everybody can access them.

    Mr. Brian Pallister: Agreed. Next one.

    The Chair: Mr. Pallister, when our witness speaks, he speaks to all of us; it's not a two-person conversation.

    Mr. Brian Pallister: I'll go through you, Mr. Chair.

    The Chair: No, just let him answer. That's all I ask.

    Mr. Brian Pallister: I want the question I ask to be answered, sir.

    The Chair: That's right. Don't interrupt, please.

    Prof. Larry Chartrand: I think that one is a valuable part of the First Nations Governance Act. But it's just simply a good practice of good governance. There are a number of pretty good principles in here that are just reflective of good governance practice, that band councils should adopt simply because they want to be good governments, effective governments.

    The point, though, is not that there isn't anything good in here. The point is the unilateral imposition of it on first nations, which would be a violation of constitutional law.

    Mr. Brian Pallister: Do I have any time left, Mr. Chairman?

    The Chair: No.

    Mr. Godfrey, you have six minutes.

    Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): I want to follow up on that and I guess I'm trying to reconcile the approaches you've taken. For example, you argue that with changes of this degree full consent is required. You use the phrase, “The full consent of the aboriginal nation affected is required”. So I guess I would be interested in knowing what would constitute a satisfactory method or way of assessing that full consent had been achieved. That would be a question.

    Then you set out on the screen a couple of options for us. One was to reject this out of hand and argue for--

    Prof. Larry Chartrand: First nations recognition.

    Mr. John Godfrey: --a first nations recognition act. Then you said if we insist on going down this road, make it an opt-in. Now, what I'm trying to do is figure out, if we went the latter route, are you saying that if there was full consent--however you're going to define it with the aboriginal nation--this would then give us the authority, working with that full consent, to impose the act as it now stands, with modifications? Or are you saying that under any conditions you'd always have to have an opt-in? Is the opt-in because we don't have full consent?

    You see what I'm trying to get at.

    Prof. Larry Chartrand: Yes, well, you could do it a couple of ways. One way is to allow for band councils and first nations to opt into the whole package with improvements, just like the First Nations Land Management Act. Communities can opt in.

    There would be a process set up for first nations to identify that they are prepared to opt in, and then from that point forth, the Indian Act doesn't apply and the First Nations Governance Act and the Indian Act apply. That would be one way to do it. You'd keep a national registry of those first nations that have opted into the legislation and this new structure.

º  (1620)  

    Mr. John Godfrey: If we went that route, then the process we're currently undertaking, which would not have the full consent, would be sufficient to at least lead us to the opt-in. Is that what you're saying, in other words?

    Prof. Larry Chartrand: Yes, I think if first nations were allowed to opt in on an individual first nation basis, that would be perfectly acceptable. They can choose not to or they can continue with the status quo. Of course, the status quo is not acceptable either, and it would be remiss on the government not to pursue the first nations recognition legislation or continuous self-governance negotiations. It's all viewed as an interim measure in any event, subject to first nations self-governance agreements.

    Mr. John Godfrey: Okay, thank you.

    The Chair: Mr. Vellacott, you have two minutes. That's for the question and the answer.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance): I was wondering, Larry, do you have a concern about the broad inspection or search and seizure measures authorized by Bill C-7, and do you think they're broader by far than they should be, subject to the challenge under the charter's guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure?

    Prof. Larry Chartrand: I haven't taught criminal law for some time, but I have looked at those provisions and have seen some legal opinions concerning them. There is real concern that the powers are too broad in some cases and that the differentiation between the search and seizure and the investigative powers leave it wide open for abuse. The investigative powers are the ones that are really the concern. They seem to be no different from the search and seizure powers, and because of that, there would certainly be challenges under the charter.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Thank you.

    The Chair: Ms. Karetak-Lindell, you have two minutes.

    Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): This is just a very quick observation. On your page 9, you say the objectives of the FNGA “can be achieved without violating fundamental principles of aboriginal-Canadian relations.” That bothers me a little, because I seem to interpret it as saying we're not Canadians. I get some people questioning that quite a bit: do first nations consider themselves Canadians?

    My other point has to do with your conclusion about being on the wrong road. I find, since I've been driving, that there are sometimes many ways to get to the same destination. I end up sometimes taking the longest one, but also, coming from an area where there aren't very many roads, we get very creative in how to get to where we want to go. That's just a point.

    Prof. Larry Chartrand: Thanks for the point.

    The Chair: Ms. Neville, you have two minutes.

    Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): Thank you.

    I'm having a little bit of difficulty, Mr. Chartrand, following your argument. You talk about the inherent right to self-government and the fact that it needs to be strengthened in the bill, and then you talk about the opt-in clause. You say that as it currently is drafted it's inconsistent with the principle of inherent right of self-government. Just as a sidebar, you also talk, in answer to Mr. Pallister's question, about the expense of 650 different ways of conducting business.

    I guess my questions are twofold. I need some further understanding of how you reconcile the opt-in clause with the inherent right of self-government, as well as how you reconcile the opt-in clause with the multiplicity of regimes within the communities.

    Prof. Larry Chartrand: That's a good question. Anywhere that the bill's provisions are suggestive that the band powers are of a delegated nature, I would argue they are inconsistent with the principle of inherent right to self-government as it exists today. In order to rectify that, you'd have to have a clause in the bill that would say that the powers that are listed are declaratory in nature of the existing, underlying, inherent customary powers of the community. If that were part of the First Nations Governance Act, you'd probably have more first nations that would wish to opt into the package.

    I'm not saying you wouldn't have any first nations opting into the package if you didn't change that, because it's still a challenge for first nations to convince governments and Indian Affairs that what they're doing here is enacting a law that's based on custom, as opposed to delegated under the Indian Act.

    The jurisprudence seems to suggest it is the case now that there are inherent powers; that the Indian Act, however, is interfering with those powers; and that the federal and the provincial governments haven't gone far to recognize that.

º  (1625)  

    The Chair: Professor, you may continue. You have three minutes for closing remarks.

    Prof. Larry Chartrand: Okay. I just want to reiterate that there are provisions in the bill that suggest the smaller first nation communities of 100, or under 500, could get together and have common institutions. At the end of the day, it probably wouldn't be 600, but a number smaller than that, because of the desire, both from the first nations' perspective, I assume, and from the federal government's perspective, of having more common institutions serving a number of first nations.

    I think that needs to be thought out a little bit more in this legislation, and if it were, you would get closer to what would probably be the process under any form of proposed first nations recognition legislation.

    The Chair: Thank you very much for a very interesting presentation.

    Prof. Larry Chartrand: Thank you.

    The Chair: We will not suspend. We will proceed directly to the next hearing.

    I invite to the table, please, presenters from Prince Albert Grand Council.

    Welcome, and thank you for accepting our invitation. We have before us Grand Chief Gary Merasty, from the Prince Albert Grand Council. I invite you to introduce to us your colleague and to proceed directly to your presentation.

    I'd like to thank you for having accepted to present here in Ottawa. This hearing should have been held out west, but we know we have many witnesses, so being in Ottawa accommodates our committee and saves us money, saves the taxpayers money, and we thank you for everything.

    Please proceed.

    Grand Chief Gary Merasty (Prince Albert Grand Council): First of all, good afternoon to honourable members in attendance here this afternoon. I want to also thank you for providing us the opportunity to do a presentation this afternoon.

    I have with me Chief Marcel Head from the Shoal Lake Cree Nation in Saskatchewan. I also have with me a number of our chiefs from the Prince Albert Grand Council. We have Chief Harry Cook, from one of the largest bands in Canada, with us. We have Chief Earl Ermine of the Sturgeon Lake Cree Nation; Chief Susan Custer from the Peter Ballantyne Cree Nation, another large multi-community in Saskatchewan; and Chief Angus Joseyounen from Hatchet Lake, one of our northern Dene communities. I have to make sure I didn't forget anybody.

    So again, thank you.

    Maybe I'll give you a brief background, then I'll jump into the presentation, if I may.

    The Prince Albert Grand Council is made up of 12 first nations in northeastern Saskatchewan. We cover a third of the geographic area. We have some of the only multi-community bands in Canada. We have a total, consequently, of 26 first nations communities in our area and a population of about 30,000 members.

    I am the chief of the Prince Albert Grand Council.

    [Witness speaks in Cree]

    I just provided a Cree greeting to you on behalf of our chiefs as well.

    Maybe I'll start with a little backgrounder on our involvement with the First Nations Governance Act over the last couple of years.

    The Prince Albert Grand Council was one of the organizations that participated in the consultation and in the discussion with the Department of Indian Affairs. We met with INAC officials in the early part of 2001.

    Our chiefs decided to participate on the following premises: number one, we had assurances that the department would listen; on the premise that they were going to bypass chief and council anyway and go to our community members; on the premise also that our chiefs were confident that what our community members would represent would be what their leaders have represented for them on their behalf over the last number of years; and also that we would have our own staff and expend some of our own funding to have our people follow around and make sure that what our people said was recorded in terms of the way they made their positions known to the department officials.

    In effect, I think we wanted to give our people a voice. We were not at all intimidated by the department bypassing the community leaders and going right into the community. In fact, we invited it.

    We entered into the discussions with goodwill. However, I don't think that goodwill was necessarily reciprocated from the department's perspective. And from our point of view they seemed to have a difficult time listening, although in many comments, nationally in the papers and the media and also in meetings with us, the department claimed they would listen to the comments of our people. We frankly found that they did not.

    So what we want to do in fact is present our experience and some recommendations and concerns that we have with respect to the proposed First Nations Governance Act and say why we feel the consultation held wasn't a consultation in any way, shape, or means.

    Right from the get-go we felt that it was not fair and was flawed, and that it was potentially poised to set back first nations' relations with government, because, as mentioned, we entered with goodwill and we were hoping to have that reciprocated. We feel that it was flawed, and we hoped that the relations of the first nations of Canada, definitely of Saskatchewan and, most importantly, of the Prince Albert Grand Council, with the government would not be compromised.

    We know that “consultation” is the term that has been used, but this is why we feel there hasn't been consultation. We all know that it's good public policy to consult, to engage in meaningful discussion with your electorate, with your members, and so on, and get a feeling for what your members are saying. In fact, it's probably required. There's been some discussion in the Supreme Court, although not put down in firm wording or in a firm test, that for legislation that will impact first nations--rights, title, or whatever the case may be--there should be meaningful, reasonable consultation with first nations members. Furthermore, it said it must be a fair process in terms of managing of data, managing of information.

    So here are our issues. Here's our experience with the consultation over the last couple of years.

    Many times INAC officials would refer to the first round of consultations as “awareness meetings”. Perhaps that was a miscommunication, I don't know. We hope not. But there was definitely “awareness meeting” language being used when department officials came into our communities.

º  (1630)  

    I think the timing was flawed. When we agreed to participate, we wanted to make sure they captured as many people as possible, but they insisted on a May to July 2001 timeframe, when people were out on the land, especially in our area, kids were out of school, people were gone. So there wasn't a significant amount of participation. Meeting notices were extremely short, if they were posted at all--with luck, sometimes the day of.

    Our attendance was extremely low. Fewer than 2% of our grand council members participated in the process that was called consultation. Perhaps 10% were aware somewhat of the FNGA, or some such language. They may have known the acronym and that was it, I don't know. Possibly around 10% seemed to be somewhat familiar with it.

    One per cent may have gained more cursory knowledge throughout the process, because as our team went out we tried to present information on what the Indian Act is and what the FNGA consequently was intended to do--what the other pieces of legislation on first nations-government relations are. But 5% of our community responses were targeted to the INAC agenda. That means 95% of the comments were not on FNGA. I think that's an important note.

    All in all, we feel all that was collected in this process was anecdotal notes. Anecdotal notes should not form a basis for the development of legislation that affects first nations people. So in the end, there has been perhaps no true consultation on the part of the department in our communities. Even though we invited, we participated, and we opened our doors and provided every opportunity to work together, we feel that consultation did not occur in any meaningful way.

    There may be a question of what our people said in these consultations if only 5% was on the INAC agenda and that 5% was not overwhelmingly positive. The majority of the comments indicate a huge divergence between what the federal government claims first nations need and what first nations know they need, and that came out very clearly.

    Of the 22 meetings we had, health care, housing, education, unemployment, and economic development emerged constantly. I've heard previous testimony that Bill C-7 would save lives, and I think that is a somewhat irresponsible comment. I think it's a comment that invites further questioning to see how and where it saves lives.

    However, the comments that our people did raise on health care, housing, education, and so forth are in areas that do save lives, and these are the main issues that our people represented to the departmental officials when they came around.

    I guess it's extremely disconcerting, when we were given the indication that the department would listen, that nowhere in any substantive way did our people's views get represented--the talk about health care, education, and so on. Instead, the focus was on the 5%--anecdotally at best. So it's disconcerting that these comments were not taken into consideration as the supposed consultation proceeded. Ninety-five per cent of the comments were on issues other than the FNGA.

    What do we want? I've heard some of the testimony, and one of the things that I think are extremely apparent over the course of history over the last 100 years is that those most successful first nations institutions that exist in this country today are a result of first nations building, developing, implementing, and overseeing them.

º  (1635)  

    Any and all institutions imposed downward have failed--the Indian Act is one I've heard mention of. Others exist as well. The top-down implementation and forced acceptance of policy and legislation doesn't have the effect it's intended to have at the community level. First nations need to have ownership of processes that they engage in jointly with the federal government, and perhaps even the provincial government, because that's another level of government involved, nevertheless, in the day-to-day lives of first nations people. They need to have that ownership of projects by having meaningful involvement, meaningful participation in drafting, and creating, and designing.

    We have examples in Saskatchewan of successful institutions: the Saskatchewan Indian Institute of Technology; the Saskatchewan Indian Federated College; teacher education programs; a registered nurse program; economic development of $60 million a year in our backyard through Kitsaki Development Corporation; economic development totalling $30-some million a year through our own development corporation at the grand council. These are all institutions that have been very successful in terms of first nations involvement and ownership.

    These institutions haven't taken away from non-first nations institutions or from non-first nations people. In fact, in Saskatchewan, and definitely in the city of Prince Albert in our surrounding area, we've added value, and I think that's extremely important to consider when there's a top-down initiative like this piece of legislation is proposed to be. How effective will it be at the end of the day if it's not owned by first nations? What about this even in terms of people in the community going to court to fight a bylaw?

    We have numerous bylaw provisions in our current Indian Act. Are they effective? No. How does this strengthen that? It's not theirs. It's not developed by the community, whatever they may be, the various provisions talked about in the act.

    So one of the things is that there needs to be some ownership.

    The second thing is that we think we need to look at the 20 years of academic and parliamentary research, and first nations research, put into RCAP, into Penner, into the Senate Standing Committee on Aboriginal Peoples, and look at some of those recommendations. We talked about economies of scale, or what I gathered to be a discussion of economies of scale. We have 660-some first nations across Canada, and rebuilding an institution in every community is expensive and time-consuming. Will we ever achieve it? Probably not. But we have examples in Canada of tribal council groupings where economies of scale are being pushed by first nations so that we realize better-quality programming, better-quality economic activity, and so on and so forth.

    So why not invest? Millions have been spent, but very little has been done out of these recommendations. Instead we have an amendment to the Indian Act. It's a crutch. Just by updating and putting a new veneer on the crutch doesn't mean we can walk any better. We still require that crutch.

    We need to begin actioning some of those recommendations made previously by the various parliamentary committees with full involvement of first nations people. In fact, I think the Penner report was ratified or accepted by all three political parties. The AFN, FSIN, numerous first nations, and the Inuit and Métis participated in these consultations and discussions in formulating future developments in self-government.

    I think there needs to be a focus more on what has been done, not on what the federal government thinks the first nations need.

    I was at a meeting in December here in Ottawa.... I've been here three times in the last month and it's more than I've been here in the last two years. We had a meeting, and one of the Indian Affairs officials said to us, “Listen, you've heard the deputy minister speak. Why don't you just trust us? We'll do what's in your best interests.” I replied to him, “Here's a comment from 1969.” The comment was from a group of first nations people who came to Ottawa and made a presentation, and the response from senior officials was that, “You must be commended on the intelligence of your presentation. However, we know what your problems are, and I'm sure you'll be happy with our carefully considered decisions.” That was in 1969, and I got that attitude again in December, last month. It's unfortunate, but it's still there.

    This is what I mean by ownership and meaningful participation in any legislation to be developed that affects first nations people.

    So Bill C-7 basically, at the end of it, is not based on strong, credible research and consultation whatsoever, and anecdotal evidence and a collection of non-probability statistics lent to skewing outcomes in maybe the direction of a piece of legislation in the end.

    So what do we want? At the end, thirdly, we want you to reject Bill C-7 in its entirety and begin some dialogue that we've already begun in the other areas of Penner, RCAP, and the Senate committee, and look at the tough questions that were posed even here today and that I've heard in previous sessions.

    I'll stop now at this point and turn it back over to the chair.

º  (1640)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    I agree with the person from the department about the intelligence of your presentation. I agree with that.

    I will not ask you to trust us; I will ask you to help us. That is why we invited you, because, as you know, the job of this committee is to look at Bill C-7 as it has been assigned to us by the Speaker of the House. We will stick to the job that was given to us. We invite people like you because you can help us make it better.

    There are arguments that the government should take a different course, but the committee will send it back to the House. With the help of people like you and your colleagues, hopefully we'll make it better than the way it was when it came to us.

    Mr. Pallister, you have nine minutes.

º  (1645)  

    Mr. Brian Pallister: Thank you. That was an excellent presentation.

    Greetings to your colleagues.

    Perhaps your tribal council is a good example of the type of model where we could get the politics away from the professional delivery of services. In many parts of the country that is very difficult, and as you know, it's not always done.

    What concerns us very much is that we don't want to see this legislation go forward toward empowerment. In spite of the fact and the sure knowledge that the vast majority of chiefs and councils are honourable people, there are some who will abuse the additional powers that this bill proposes to give and place in danger the rights of some of the members of their bands.

    Do you think it's realistic that this legislation imposes a two-year requirement for the enactment of many codes? It's a very complex process of two years.

    For many bands in this country, I'm told, a third of the bands have 100 people or thereabouts. In my own rural community where I come from, we have some very small bands. They're saying to me “two years, my goodness”. Even if they had the default codes in front of them right now, which they don't, two years in which to go to the people, do the consultation, and develop a process, is not realistic. That's an individual band.

    I have two concerns. First, for bands that are not as cooperative with one another as you are, is it realistic to assume they can develop these kinds of codes in that period of time? Secondly, is it realistic that you can?

    Grand Chief Gary Merasty: I guess the first question back to you is, have they been given the opportunity? What tools have they been provided with to realize what they've been asked to do? It comes back to the fundamental question of what they have been empowered to do and what tools they have been given.

    Mr. Brian Pallister: I will give you back this question, then.

    Even if they were given the tools, the minister has said $100 million or so will be made available for the development of codes. That is $100 million or so to develop codes in perhaps 400, 500, or 600 different communities. Many of them are very small and very isolated communities.

    Is that the right model? Even if they were given the resources and the tools, at the end of the day, would what we have developed, as people in this country, be a good model for improving the governance of those people most profoundly affected by it?

    If what we're building isn't worth building, who cares about the resources? We should, of course, not be putting resources toward something that's going to be a disaster when it's built. Right?

    Grand Chief Gary Merasty: Yes, you're right.

    We have examples, I think. You point to our grand council perhaps as one example. There are examples where it works and it has been done. I think we've had other tribal councils from across Canada look at this tribal council and ask how we did it.

    What is the motivation for us to come together, stick together, and separate the business from the politics, for lack of a better term? I think it's not from a lack of motivation. Given the proper tools, the proper time, and the proper incentives, I think the proper governance systems within the broader scope of government can be developed.

    I think some of the recommendations exist in the studies I mentioned earlier.

    Mr. Brian Pallister: I share your optimism, and I look forward to speaking again with you and your colleagues at a more appropriate time and learning more about what you've done to achieve these outcomes.

    This is a very real concern for many people--women, minority clan members, bands, and people off reserve. They are very concerned that their governance structures will be weakened, not strengthened, by these proposals.

    On the issue of redress mechanisms, I can see that with the model you are advancing there might be the possibility that redress mechanisms could be offered collectively, which would put chiefs in the position of not being accused of appointing their friend to that office, or whatever the case may be, and giving that distance. Do you share my concern that for many bands this is just not a tenable proposal?

º  (1650)  

    Grand Chief Gary Merasty: I'm not sure where the basis of your thought would come from, necessarily.

    Mr. Brian Pallister: To clarify, it comes from chiefs I've spoken with who have said, “This is a no-win situation for me. I can't appoint a redress officer. The council does that. The perception among our band members would be that we are doing it. We can't win on it.” So they are saying they would rather see some kind of arm's-length, cooperative body, as you have, involved in that kind of administration. For the sake of consistency and the protection of their own people, they want to see that.

    Grand Chief Gary Merasty: I can't speak for the chiefs who are here. But they have a process in their own communities where they remove themselves and let community groups, led by an elected councillor or someone else, have a say and make recommendations to the chief and council.

    I don't see it as a glass half-empty scenario. I see it as a glass half-full. At this stage in Canadian first nations relations and with our demographic profile, we have to start seeing it as a glass half-full and to do what we can to make sure we realize the better part of that glass.

    Perhaps Chief Head could comment on his experiences.

    Mr. Brian Pallister: Sure. I'd appreciate hearing your comments.

    Chief Marcel Head (Shoal Lake Cree Nation): I welcome this opportunity to make our presentation and to greet everyone on behalf of my first nation.

    In terms of that issue, we've had a short timeframe in which to change some of the things that have been done traditionally. This is just one example of what we're doing in our first nation. It is simply separating politics from management. We did that just recently when I was re-elected as chief.

    In terms of redress, we have people in place who do a remarkable job of putting those components into our government system. If you were to visit Shoal Lake, you would find some of those key components within our government right now. These are some of the things that we seriously believe the First Nations Governance Act might be able to assist us with.

    I want to make a comment with regard to the election process accountability. We have no problems, because we already have processes in place that allow, for example, off-reserve first nations members to vote in our election process. In terms of accountability, we do have mechanisms by which we report to our total first nations body as to how their government administers the programs.

    That is basically what we would provide as an answer. Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Does anyone on the government side wish to ask questions?

    Mr. Godfrey.

    Mr. John Godfrey: Welcome, and thank you very much. I think you're to be commended for your proactive view of the first round of the consultation phase. In hearing the account, no one could fault you for being obstructionist or anything like that. I imagine you must be disappointed with a number of things that have happened.

    I realize your final position is that you think we should just reject the bill. Had the consultation process been better.... I realize you don't want to compromise your position by getting into details on a bill that you think should be rejected entirely, but unfortunately our job is to deal with this bill.

    We understand you want us to reject it, and there are things that 95% of the people who responded would put ahead of the list. Nevertheless, if we must have this piece of legislation, is there anything in it of value, despite the flawed consultation process and the fact that it is not the top priority?

º  (1655)  

    Grand Chief Gary Merasty: I would have to say no, because when you look at our backyard, primarily in Saskatchewan, there are always issues that arise. Without the weight of legislation behind them, these chiefs already do in their communities what FNGA is trying to propose. So some of the wording in the bill is similar to what our bands do, and they would have no problem implementing those parts.

    On lack of ownership, there are other communities across Canada that don't own it and haven't been provided the opportunity to develop it on their own, so how effective will this legislation be at the end of the day? We all know legislation is fallible, and ways and means can be taken to work around it. Look at Enron, WorldCom, and ethics issues. There are always ways for people to get around things.

    So how effective will this be at the end of the day? That's my question to you.

    Mr. John Godfrey: Are you saying that if Bill C-7 proceeds with or without amendments, because of the particular stage you're at, with a critical mass of folks and institutions that work, its passage, as far as you're concerned--not speaking for anybody else--would be basically irrelevant? Or are you're saying it would be not only irrelevant but obstructionist, that it would throw even more burdens upon you? Just imagine this had been passed, more or less in this form. What would be the practical impact on your operations?

    Grand Chief Gary Merasty: In the big picture, the impact of the bill would be more to destroy the positive relationship first nations are trying to have with the Government of Canada. By not listening and working with first nations, they are just showing disdain for us. The big picture is that by passing the bill, it just shows a broader disdain for working with the first nations community.

    Mr. John Godfrey: You put us in a very difficult position. Thank you, I guess.

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

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I need to ask Grand Chief Gary or somebody off the top here whether the Mistawasis Band is part of Prince Albert.... It isn't.

    I also noticed a gentleman sitting right next to Ms. Morin. Is he a chief, too?

    Grand Chief Gary Merasty: Yes. That's Chief Gary Standing from the Wahpeton Dakota Nation, also with the Prince Albert Grand Council.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I'm pleased to meet you. Thank you.

    I'm intrigued, Chief Gary, with your comments that it's successful when it's not top-down and when it comes up from the ordinary folk, the band members, the grassroots if you will.

    I've had the privilege of being on reserves in my own province and in other parts of the country. One that really very much impressed me--of course, you would know of it--was the Six Nations Reserve near Brantford, Ontario. When I looked at it that situation I said, yes, but they also have the advantage of being close to urban populations and education for their youth. They have lots of role models by virtue of that, and so on. They have critical mass, if you will.

    Is that a necessary ingredient? The critical base, the viability, and the feasibility issue come into play there in a big way. They were warm and wonderful people in how they treated us. They toured us around and sketched out the history and the issues they had to deal with.

    Sometimes they are at loggerheads with the department and insist on certificates of possession. They can audit them to the nth degree. For people taking loans out, they'll say, “Hey, if he doesn't make good on that repayment, you walk right in here and repossess that big semi truck”, or whatever. They have some very good stuff going.

    Does it take critical mass to do that? I have a bit of an impression it might, but I don't have the answer on that one.

    Grand Chief Gary Merasty: A critical mass of people.

»  (1700)  

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Is it hard to impose on small numbers of people? You can go into the non-aboriginal community, but my sense is that it's a much greater or more onerous burden to assume they're going to be able to run health, education, and of all those things. I am drawn to tribal councils, because I feel that it's not a whole “first nation” in many cases, but a first nations community. It's a very onerous burden we place on them.

    So does it require big numbers, and what would those numbers be?

    Grand Chief Gary Merasty: I think there's definitely that component to it. If we look at small town Saskatchewan, it's dying—and perhaps small town Manitoba as well. The challenges upon a small municipality are not that different from the challenges upon a small first nations community. Perhaps an advantage a small first nations community has is the ability to work on an economy of scale with a group of bands, and to work together in economic development activity to create employment. So we have to look at those limitations and delimitations, which may exist around a community like Kahnawake in Montreal, and look at what components of their activity make them successful and what components make some unsuccessful.

    So I think a closer examination is required of these limitations and delimitations. But truthfully, sitting around the table here, can any of us say with certainty that we have examined comfortably the delimitations and limitations of bringing up the first nations socio-economic situation? I don't think we can.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Then dare I say with my next question, would it not be a whole lot better to spend our time—not necessarily as a committee—on delivery models instead of on Bill C-7? We could maybe do it with tribal councils, or maybe across some different tribal groups, and so on. But if this is the way to go, with economies of scale, we should put the resources and moneys into it, rather than Bill C-7. Would this be more preferred by many of our first nations communities across the country, instead of 600?

    Grand Chief Gary Merasty: I think we'd need to look at the fact that there is always a base of treaty rights that our first nations and the Constitution talk about. But the Constitutions leaves them open; it does not define them, but just says recognize existing....

    I'll come back to your question, as I don't want to stray from it. But one of the concerns our first nations have is that the suite of bills proposed, and other bills, start to define, limit, and gut the treaty argument without treaty rights being firmly defined yet, because there hasn't been a first ministers session on them. There haven't been constitutional discussions on them. They have always petered out, for lack of a better term, before they got going. Until we identify some of the base rights, and what these treaty rights are, as talked about in the Constitution....Upon that base, then, we can establish and start saying,okay, we agree from a treaty perspective that this is what we're entitled to as first nations in this area, or in this community. From such a base, we know we can do all and be the end-all of everything. When we get a firmer understanding of that base, more tangible discussions around economies of scale can happen.

    So there's a big missing piece here. Without that solid base and foundation of where we are starting from, to start talking about economies of scale....

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Hubbard.

    Mr. Charles Hubbard: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    On economies of scale and the size of the different relationships, yesterday we had the Mohawk group here. It was again a large number of people. But as Mr. Pallister mentioned, there are other groups who are very small—100, 200, 300, or 500. It probably becomes a difficult situation for each one of them to develop codes and to do all the different things we're expecting of them in this bill.

    In terms of Bill C-7, does each of your first nations have a code for the relationship among their own people in terms of governance? Is there a code available in most—

    Grand Chief Gary Merasty: Just as a comment on the small bands, we have one of the smallest bands in Canada, Wahpeton, which is part of the Prince Albert Grand Council. They have been extremely diligent in making sure they establish codes like that. I'm sure--if I can remember correctly, without putting words in Chief Standing's mouth--they have an election code; they have a constitution. For those that have been developed, a lot of these things don't necessarily cost a lot of money, but it's the authorities granted to them and what authorities they can exercise.

    Then we go to some of the biggest bands, and Peter Ballantyne of La Ronge, and they have some of the same struggles despite the money to develop some of these codes. They run into the same situation as a multi-community band does, for example, to go out there and do proper consultation, because Indian government support funding of the activities of Indian government at the local community is virtually non-existent. Yet I know the bands in our area have been very proactive in designing those codes.

    As a matter of fact, over the last 10 years they've empowered the grand council to work as a collective to develop a base model, a base vehicle. They worked collectively at first, and then they took that model to modify to fit their communities.

»  (1705)  

    Mr. Charles Hubbard: Grand Chief, if we were to look at how you operate and at the text of this bill, what parts of it would be most objectionable in terms of how you work and what the bill is asking us to look at as members of Parliament?

    Grand Chief Gary Merasty: Again, my comment earlier to Mr. John Godfrey, the honourable member here, was that it's the bigger picture that we have a concern with. Is there not a willingness in this government to work with first nations people to design legislation that everybody can work with and support? We haven't been given that opportunity. I can design many different pieces of legislation and material that have wonderful things in them, but will it be useful and implementable and enforceable?

    Mr. Charles Hubbard: But it's a dichotomy; it's the chicken and the egg, probably, in terms of where you start and where you get off. If you never make a start, you never get much done. Maybe if your codes and your constitution were given to us, we might be able to say, does it fit in with what somebody else here is trying to do? But if we never start somewhere....

    It was a great step for humanity when they reached the moon, you know, the one step that he took, but if we don't start somewhere, we never get anywhere.

    I think a lot of people are not that comfortable about going back to something that was written 125 or 130 years ago that has been the so-called way we've attempted to work, to cooperate, and to develop a partnership among the various people, the people who owned the country first and the people like us who came here.

    So I'm not sure, but somehow, as members, we have to develop and continue this, hopefully, good relationship and get codes that.... The worst thing about a country this large, this vast, is that there are so many different peoples, and it's difficult to get a one-fits-all sort of approach that sometimes we look for.

    So, thanks, Mr. Chair.

    Thank you very much, Grand Chief, and all the chiefs, for coming today.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Vellacott, for five minutes.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: If I'm not using my time, is it all right if my colleague picks up the last couple of minutes or whatever?

    The Chair: Yes. We'll start with you, Maurice.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I guess the issue is, in terms of codes, in all forms of leadership models and governance models over history, there's a need for something of an appeal process, how formally that's put together. I'm curious as to whether, in your different bands, there is an appeal process.

    Particularly, in Bill C-7, where we talk about the leadership's election codes, it provides for an appeal process, but it doesn't identify the body or the bodies to which those appeals might be made. So when you write your codes, as has been suggested by some of the ones who have done good codes already, and extensive ones, I guess, is there an appeal process? In Bill C-7, who is going to be the appeal body? We don't have a clear picture of that.

    Grand Chief Gary Merasty: There's a variety of committees that serve as the appeals committee. One model we're trying to build on immediately is what's happening in northern Manitoba, the MKO, with their justice initiative. They have a magistrate or a JP system where community disputes come. Before they come there, they enact a local committee. But they focus primarily on the summary type of offence and some of the bylaws. We're talking about that in our grand council. Some of our communities right now have various committees that they appeal to.

    But it's a big problem we have also as a government. I'll give you an example. We run what—and I'll state my bias right now—is one of the best health transfer systems in the country, through Northern Intertribal Health Authority--two tribal councils and a number of bands partnering together. We engaged in a dispute resolution model with the government and were shut down, even though the government agreed we were 30% short-changed. That's a different argument from the one the provinces get in terms of their health care woes. When there's no meaningful way to model appeal processes for the chief and council and on up to government, I think we're more advanced in enacting some at the local level than we are in even some of our relations with the government at the current time.

»  (1710)  

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Who do you think the body or the bodies here are to which the appeals might be made, in respect to the appeal process under Bill C-7? Do you have any sense of that? Have you looked particularly over that part of the bill?

    Grand Chief Gary Merasty: Yes. What happens right now, in appeals around elections, for example: that's the question, right?

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: But I'm talking about the future, under Bill C-7. Who do you go to? What are the bodies? Is it clear enough to you in Bill C-7?

    Grand Chief Gary Merasty: No, not at all. Even the default codes we were talking about earlier, where are they? There are many gaps.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Yes. Would you feel reassured to see some “default codes”?

    Grand Chief Gary Merasty: Do you mean ahead of time? Hopefully, we don't have to get there, because if we can reject the bill....

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Do you have any sense that if it goes that far and the thing is going to be pushed forward, you are going to be involved in the writing or drafting of default codes? Have you had any hints from the minister or from anybody on that?

    Grand Chief Gary Merasty: I think many of those codes already exist within our first nations communities. They have developed them themselves in working together at the grand council. So it wouldn't be hard, because they do it already without the legislation. The composition of the committees involves community members.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: You're nervous about the absence of any visible default codes at this point?

    Grand Chief Gary Merasty: Oh, about everything. There are a significant number of gaps. We worry about a conflict between the current Indian Act and the new FNGA. In the FNGA, they talk about preservation of language, culture, first nations communities. In the Indian Act, there's the education. Right now in our communities, a large part of the preservation of language and culture and perpetuation of our culture happens in the schools, so where is there a conflict, or which act supercedes or is higher than the other? I think there are a number of examples between the acts, if you look at them closely. Where do we go? Which one is really in effect? And how is the government going to devise default codes, and based on which piece of legislation, for suggesting the design and composition of committees, and so on and so forth?

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I'm going to pass it off to my colleague, here, if he's got just a minute. But we in the Canadian Alliance have been pushing the fact we want to see some default codes here—and something that's been done in consultation with you—but I don't know that we will before this bill is done here.

    The Chair: Mr. Pallister.

    Mr. Brian Pallister: There just isn't enough time to talk about all of these things. There probably isn't enough time for bands to comply with this proposal, either. Two years is not a long time, and you know that we're concerned about that.

    Mr. Hubbard used an analogy, as did Nancy, about trips, destinations, the road taken, and so on and so forth. I think we can all agree that if we don't agree on the destination, then we aren't going to agree on the route. I think that's fundamental to your presentation today. You're also not satisfied with the method of determining the route, so we have a disagreement there as well. I think your point is well made, that whether or not we get to the destination the federal government has outlined with this bill, if we didn't agree on the destination together, then the journey is probably not going to be any fun. We can't have one person in the vehicle against their will.

    All that being said, there are some fundamental difficulties with management that are very real, in Manitoba and Saskatchewan in particular, and we shouldn't deny that. I want you to address that.

    In my area a couple of the local bands are in third party right now. I think about half of Manitoba's and Saskatchewan's bands are in either whole or third-party management right now. Talk about that.

    I haven't met a chief yet who has a problem with audited financial statements. This bill proposes requirements that I think most of the chiefs and councils are already meeting. This has been policy for a long time. This isn't new. Isn't that right?

»  (1715)  

    Grand Chief Gary Merasty: Right.

    Mr. Brian Pallister: I'm more concerned about the larger issue: what's going on with our management, how we can address that, and whether or not this bill is doing that.

    Grand Chief Gary Merasty: In a presentation made by a witness here a little while ago, I heard the comment that chiefs are taking money from education to fund Indian government activities. If a band gets in trouble, what is the one thing a third-party manager does right off the bat? He takes money from education to take care of the debt. What is wrong with that picture? Is that not indicative of another greater problem? The most media-friendly response has been to blame the chief and council and to make accusations of mismanagement and corruption. Ask third-party managers what funding levels are available in that community when they take over to deliver the services they're required to deliver.

    Mr. Brian Pallister: Thank you.

    I want to make the point that certainly since I was made critic, and I believe prior to that time, we chose not to focus on that, because we believe it paints the responsible managers with the same brush when you make that accusation. So we choose not to focus on that. But we can't ignore the management difficulties out of fear that we'll offend good managers with these questions. So I won't do that.

    The third-party management approach of this government, as you know, is that the bands are put into third party by INAC but not necessarily by six other departments that are also funnelling money through the band. This seems to us to be a rather convoluted approach. If you're a bad manager at INAC, how come you're still a good manager at Health Canada or Industry Canada, for example?

    It's a tough one. We'd like to see no third-party managers be necessary.

    These are our provinces we're talking about right now. Why do we have such a problem in Manitoba and Saskatchewan in particular?

    Grand Chief Gary Merasty: I will venture to say--and again my bias will come out--that many of the bands in Manitoba and Saskatchewan are very proactive, and they go beyond the scope of duty demanded of them by their constituents. Fifty per cent of our members live off reserve, but all of them can now vote, based on the Corbiere decision. Along with that comes the expectation that they're entitled to services, and many of our chiefs are having a hard time saying no. A couple of our first nations are at the point where they are prepared to draw a line between who is on reserve and who is off reserve, forcing the department to say, you're responsible for these, because that's all they fund us for. That would be unfortunate, and the media and everybody would jump on it. The bands have to respond to their members, and they want to. They say that the treaty rights are portable and these people are entitled, so they want to represent the urban membership.

    So that's one issue, but they are very proactive and very responsive.

    I just want to mention one comment about a starting point that I think the honourable member mentioned. We have to start somewhere. We're suggesting we start with the 20 years of work that's been done based on Penner and on RCAP. There are some excellent recommendations in there. That's where we want to start, not here.

    Those issues you raised today, are they going to be taken care of by Bill C-7? I don't think so.

    The Chair: Ms. Neville.

    Ms. Anita Neville: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for your presentation, Grand Chief.

    I just want to pick up on the last comment you made. I too am from Manitoba, and I was struck by your comment that many of the chiefs are finding it difficult not to respond to those members of their community who live in the urban setting. Can you tell me a little bit more about that?

»  (1720)  

    Grand Chief Gary Merasty: I'll break it down to a political problem. The members vote for the chief and council, and if they don't provide services for them, will they vote them in?

    Ms. Anita Neville: What kinds of services?

    Grand Chief Gary Merasty: They expect elementary and secondary school services, health care, post-secondary--which is there already, but capped--housing, welfare, and so on.

    Ms. Anita Neville: If they live in an urban setting, where do they require elementary and secondary school? In the urban setting?

    Grand Chief Gary Merasty: We can get into this very in-depth. We have significant issues to deal with when it comes to tuition agreements between bands and municipalities and school divisions.

    Ms. Anita Neville: I'm well aware of them.

    Grand Chief Gary Merasty: There is a lack of transparency, I think, on the part of the school divisions in terms of the tuition agreements. There are some gaps that they expect the band to pony up to the table with.

    Ms. Anita Neville: Since Corbiere, this has been an increasing issue, I gather.

    Grand Chief Gary Merasty: I'll make the one statement on Corbiere that our chiefs across Canada unanimously have made: the treaty right is portable, and we want to be responsible to provide services to our off-reserve members.

    Ms. Anita Neville: Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you very much. This has been very informative, and we look forward to visiting your fine region, Prince Albert.

    I invite you to make closing remarks. We have about five minutes.

    Grand Chief Gary Merasty: I'll do it in a couple of minutes and I'll give the chief here an opportunity to make some closing remarks.

    I think the intention of this bill is to make first nations more accountable, more transparent, improve governance processes, redress, and also provide opportunities to resolve disputes. Many of these things are already happening. But the effectiveness of this bill, at the end of the day, with so many gaps, no default, the ultimate responsibility of one department.... They decide how long you have an exemption from this act if you're in a self-government agreement, for example; how much they'll fund that self-government agreement; how strong a mandate they'll give to fund that agreement, and then they can cut you off and then put you in the FNGA. There are a lot of problems with the bill in terms of being able to realize what the government intends it to do at the grassroots level.

    We feel that it will not be effective at all. It will actually hurt, unfortunately, relations between first nations and the government in this country because it's being imposed with very little consultation, although the 10,000 figure given seems a fair amount, perhaps. I think perhaps there are some interesting ways to tabulate the statistical number of people actually consulted, that the impact at the community level will be extremely minimal. And that comes not from us strictly fighting for the sake of fighting this bill from a treaty perspective, but from knowing how well we've done things and how well first nations have done across this country.

    The most successful institutions have been the ones that first nations have designed, developed, implemented, and operated. And without that type of input, the effectiveness of this bill, at the end of the day...it will have cost millions of dollars to develop, probably millions more to implement.

    There was a question earlier, can you think of a more expensive and less effective...? Well, this can grow to be that.

    We all agree that we want to improve the social and economic situation of our people, but there are better ways to do it than by focusing strictly on administration and governance. And as I said, I think the comment that this could save lives is irresponsible. What will save lives is starting to mobilize and deal with health care, education, and demographic profile.

    Saskatchewan is more at risk because of the high population of aboriginal people in that province and the declining non-aboriginal population. The echo that comes after a baby boom is usually not as big as the boom. In Saskatchewan, the echo is bigger than the boom, and that echo is the aboriginal people in the province.

    National policies and national approaches that may work in some of the bigger provinces will be detrimental to Saskatchewan, given the difficulty of its fiscal position. So this bill misses out on the big picture. It will not be effective at the grassroots level and it will have cost a lot of time and money.

»  (1725)  

    Chief Marcel Head: Thanks, Grand Chief.

    I'd like to take this time to thank all the members of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources. I hope our presentation can assist you to determine the outcome of this piece of legislation. But all in all, on behalf of our membership in the Prince Albert Grand Council, we'd like to see legislation that will address directly the needs of the people and not so much how you run the first nations themselves.

    We come from communities that are very diverse. We are, from day to day, faced with many problems in our community--housing, education, social programs. These are the most needed areas in our communities. And, yes, we agree that we need to establish some strong government components in our first nations. But if there was a government that was able to assist us in addressing those things, I think our people would come out and express their gratitude toward that government.

    So on behalf of my first nation, I would like to take this time to thank all the committee members for listening to our presentation today. Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you very much. Your presentation was very helpful, and we thank you for it. It certainly will assist us in our deliberations.

    Thank you, colleagues. I will see you tomorrow.

    The meeting is adjourned.