AANR Committee Meeting

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

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

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

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Wednesday, March 19, 2003

0810

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

Mr. Frank Turner (Executive Director, Swampy Cree Tribal Council)

Chief Phillip Buck (Swampy Cree Tribal Council)

0815

0820

0825

The Chair

Chief Phillip Buck

The Chair

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

0830

Mr. Frank Turner

Mr. Brian Pallister

Mr. Frank Turner

Mr. Brian Pallister

Mr. Frank Turner

Mr. Brian Pallister

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

0835

Mr. Frank Turner

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Frank Turner

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Frank Turner

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Frank Turner

The Chair

Mr. Frank Turner

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Frank Turner

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

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

0840

Mr. Frank Turner

Ms. Anita Neville

Chief Phillip Buck

The Chair

Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Frank Turner

0845

Mr. Reed Elley

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Frank Turner

The Chair

Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.)

0850

Mr. Frank Turner

The Chair

Mr. Frank Turner

0855

The Chair

Mr. Frank Turner

The Chair

Mr. Jean Allard (As Individual)

The Chair

Mr. Jean Allard

0900

0905

The Chair

Mr. Jean Allard

The Chair

Mr. Stan Dromisky

The Chair

Mr. Jean Allard

The Chair

Ms. Anita Neville

Mr. Stan Dromisky

The Chair

Mr. Jean Allard

The Chair

0910

Mr. Alan Isfeld (Waywayseecappo Band Member, As Individual)

The Chair

Mr. Alan Isfeld

The Chair

Mr. Alan Isfeld

0915

The Chair

Mr. Alan Isfeld

The Chair

Mr. Alan Isfeld

The Chair

Grand Chief Margaret Swan (Southern Chiefs' Organization)

0920

0925

The Chair

Mr. Reed Elley

0930

Grand Chief Margaret Swan

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Grand Chief Margaret Swan

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

0935

Grand Chief Margaret Swan

Mr. Pat Martin

Grand Chief Margaret Swan

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.)

0940

Grand Chief Margaret Swan

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Grand Chief Margaret Swan

The Chair

Mr. Brian Pallister

Grand Chief Margaret Swan

Mr. Brian Pallister

0945

Grand Chief Margaret Swan

Mr. Brian Pallister

Grand Chief Margaret Swan

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Grand Chief Margaret Swan

Mr. Pat Martin

Grand Chief Margaret Swan

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

0950

Ms. Anita Neville

Grand Chief Margaret Swan

The Chair

Mr. Brian Pallister

0955

Grand Chief Margaret Swan

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Grand Chief Margaret Swan

Mr. Pat Martin

1000

Grand Chief Margaret Swan

The Chair

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

Grand Chief Margaret Swan

The Chair

1005

Mr. Brian Pallister

Grand Chief Margaret Swan

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Grand Chief Margaret Swan

1010

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Stan Dromisky

The Chair

Grand Chief Margaret Swan

1015

The Chair

Grand Chief Margaret Swan

The Chair

Mr. Joe Anderson (Executive Director, Interlake Reserves Tribal Council Inc.)

The Chair

Mr. Joe Anderson

The Chair

Mr. Joe Anderson

1020

The Chair

Mr. Joe Anderson

The Chair

Mr. Joe Anderson

The Chair

Mr. Joe Anderson

The Chair

Mr. Reed Elley

The Chair

Mr. Reed Elley

Mr. Joe Anderson

Mr. Reed Elley

Mr. Joe Anderson

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Joe Anderson

1025

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Mr. Joe Anderson

Mr. Charles Hubbard

The Chair

Mr. Joe Anderson

The Chair

Chief Garnet Woodhouse (Interlake Reserves Tribal Council Inc.)

1030

The Chair

Chief Jerry Marsden (Interlake Reserves Tribal Council Inc.)

The Chair

Mr. Jerry Fontaine (Treaty One Protection and Implementation Office, Treaty One First Nations)

Chief Denny Meeches (Long Plain First Nation, Treaty One First Nations)

1035

The Chair

Chief Denny Meeches

1045

The Chair

Mr. Jerry Fontaine

The Chair

Mr. Joseph Daniels (Sogkeeng First Nations)

1050

The Chair

Mr. Kenneth Young (Manitoba Regional Chief, Assembly of First Nations)

1055

The Chair

Mr. Raymond Beaulieu (Councilor, Sandy Bay, Manitoba, Treaty One First Nations)

1100

1105

1110

The Chair

Mr. Paul Chief (Councillor, Brokenhead Ojibway Nation, Treaty One First Nations)

1115

The Chair

Chief Denny Meeches

The Chair

Mr. Jerry Fontaine

The Chair

1120

Mr. Rick Cornelsen (Aboriginal Neighbours Program Coordinator, Mennonite Central Committee Canada)

1125

Mr. Donovan Jacobs (Member, MCC Manitoba Aboriginal Neighbours Advisory Committee, Mennonite Central Committee Canada)

1130

1135

The Chair

Mr. Donovan Jacobs

The Chair

Mr. Donovan Jacobs

The Chair

Mr. Rick Cornelsen

The Chair

Mr. Brian Pallister

1140

Mr. Rick Cornelsen

Mr. Brian Pallister

Mr. Rick Cornelsen

Mr. Brian Pallister

Mr. Rick Cornelsen

Mr. Brian Pallister

Mr. Rick Cornelsen

Mr. Brian Pallister

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Rick Cornelsen

1145

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Rick Cornelsen

The Chair

Mr. Stan Dromisky

Mr. Donovan Jacobs

Mr. Stan Dromisky

Mr. Donovan Jacobs

The Chair

Mr. Rick Cornelsen

1150

The Chair

Mr. Rick Cornelsen

Mr. Donovan Jacobs

The Chair

Ms. Corena Letandre (As Individual)

The Chair

Mrs. Corena Letandre

The Chair

Mr. Gerald McIvor (As Individual)

1155

The Chair

Ms. Lisa Shewchook (As Individual)

1200

The Chair

Mr. Glen Monkman (As Individual)

The Chair

Mr. Glen Monkman

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources

NUMBER 044

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Wednesday, March 19, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¾ (0810)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.)): Good morning, everyone. We will resume proceedings in 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 understand that Andrea Murdock is not here yet. We're on Andrea's time, so I will suspend proceedings until 8:15, which is in four minutes, when we will invite the Swampy Cree Tribal Council.

Actually, there are only four minutes left on Miss Murdock's time, so we'll proceed to the Swampy Cree Tribal Council immediately, if you agree. Please.

I welcome Frank Turner, the executive director. We will have 45 minutes together. We will ask you, Mr. Turner, to introduce your colleague and proceed immediately to your presentation, which will hopefully be followed by questions from members.

You may proceed at your will.

Mr. Frank Turner (Executive Director, Swampy Cree Tribal Council): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning.

My name is Frank Turner. I'm the executive director of Swampy Cree Tribal Council, situated at first nation OCN and servicing eight first nations within the region.

With me is Chief Philip Buck of Mosakahiken Cree Nation, and also Brad Regehr, who is our adviser. With the committee's permission, we have asked Brad Regehr, as legal counsel, to be allowed to sit with us for advice.

Also, we would like to thank you for giving us the opportunity to make this presentation to the committee members. You should have received the written submission already. Today we are going to give you a summary of our positions.

With that, I would like to turn over the microphone to Chief Philip Buck, who will be making the presentation. Thank you.

Chief Phillip Buck (Swampy Cree Tribal Council): Good morning, committee members, ladies and gentlemen. I am very pleased and honoured to be in front of this committee and to hear from the standing committee on recommendations.

First of all, if I may be allowed to speak my own language, I need to thank the Creator.

[Witness speaks in his native language]

Thank you very much, committee members and Mr. Chairman.

I will get straight to the points in our presentation, the key recommendations. First of all, I would like to apologize on behalf of our Grand Chief Harold Turner. He had to attend a funeral in his community yesterday, so he couldn't make it here.

One of the key recommendations when Bill C-7 was introduced into the House, received first reading, and was referred to this committee is that Bill C-7 be withdrawn in its entirety and that the federal government conduct proper consultations and negotiations with us and other first nations regarding self-government—matters in the spirit and intent of the treaties that were signed by our ancestors and the Crown over a hundred years ago.

As first nations community members we have for the last 40 to 100 years always practised and talked about governance in our own communities. As we are the only people who live in our community in northern Manitoba, with a population of 1,500, we can only have good governance in the way the grassroots people want to see it.

Swampy Cree Tribal Council is responsible for eight first nations communities. I have to read this submission because it takes eight first nations communities and the staff to put it together—at a cost, when you look at the staff and everybody involved, that is tremendous for a small community population.

With a membership of over 13,000, two-thirds of our membership are residents on reserve. The chiefs of each of the first nations make up the board of directors at the tribal council. We are located in the west-central area of Manitoba.

We did not participate in the consultation process. Our members passed a resolution providing the direction at our last general assembly, which was held on July 23 to 25, 2002, on one of our member first nation's reserve land, at OCN, Opaskwayak Cree Nation.

SCTC and member first nations have struggled for years to develop, improve, and enhance our own governance. We have been leaders in the development and delivery of programs and services of a wide variety at all levels. The objectives of accountability, transparency, and good governance have always been central to our institutions and operations.

Concerning increased ministerial authority, SCTC has a grave concern with the increased discretionary authority being given to the minister under Bill C-7. It allows the minister the direction to conduct assessments of a first nation's financial position, imposing remedial measures based on three factors at his discretion. SCTC finds this unacceptable. There is no recourse for first nations, no appeal mechanism other than the Federal Court, which is very expensive and at times frustrating.

To suggest that the minister would never abuse such authority flies in the face of the recent Pikangikum case, where the Federal Court considered the minister to have breached the duty of procedural fairness in the appointment of a third-party manager.

We are not comforted by these provisions. We are concerned that increased ministerial authority will only cause further outside interference in our affairs.

On accountability issues and reporting requirements, the Auditor General's report identified the many reports first nations must submit. Day to day we see that in our communities. I have with me here some of the reports my first nation submitted during the year 2001-2002, and we have a box full of stuff here behind me, which we would like to give to the committee members. Our staff are over-extended in preparing these reports and meeting the many deadlines set by INAC.

¾ (0815)

I will give you a good example. I'm here in the city of Winnipeg and I needed to see our contribution agreement for 2003-2004. I phoned my FSO yesterday, getting a call from my manager back home that we need to sit down and look at it before March 31. I have been told it's not ready; it will be ready tomorrow, which is—is it March 19 today? That's the kind of thing we are faced with.

At the end of the day, we're pretty well forced to sign those contribution agreements without thoroughly going through them. All these are requirements from a government that has so many difficulties remaining accountable itself—e.g., the Department of National Defence, where for 20 years employees using PO cards got kickbacks from gas stations; HRDC, with human resource development grants for job creation that never occurred; the PMO, the Prime Minister's Office, for matters in Chrétien's riding.

Concerning contribution agreements, Bill C-7 does not address the inconsistent and unfair approach the federal government takes regarding contribution agreements and funding of first nations. The department refuses to negotiate with first nations over contribution agreements. We have a copy of a letter dated March 8, 2001, mailed to our tribal council, that requested cashflow information back at the regional office by March 12, 2001. Additionally, the signed CFA was to be returned by March 23, 2001. The package did not include various reporting guides and handbooks that first nations and tribal council were expected to comply with. The example provides more time than is normally allowed for these transactions. As of today, my first nation, as I have said earlier, has not received its CFA.

Bill C-7 does not put any obligation or standards on the federal government. First nations, funded based on reserve population formulas, now have added accountability for off-reserve members, and I think the membership or population count that was last done was done five years ago. Then my community was drastically affected by Bill C-31 in 1985. I became chief in 1991, and my community had a total membership population of 600 people; now I have a band list of 1,500 people. No other funding came forward, but just a reinstatement of the band members, which I duly fully support.

Bill C-7 fails to address the intervention policy. The current intervention policy is not subject to any outside scrutiny, nor is an independent ombudsperson provided for first nations. There is no role for the Office of the Auditor Ggeneral when the department fails first nations.

We note that a great deal has been made of the fact that subclause 10(3) restricts the statutory power of the minister to conduct assessments of a first nation's financial position or order remedial actions. The minister will continue to have further powers under the intervention policy and contribution agreements. This will further the minister's power rather than restricting and qualifying it.

We welcome the study the Auditor General is conducting on co-management and third-party management processes. We know of no tendering process for granting third-party managers contracts. Such contracts often end up as windfalls for the individuals and friends who receive them. Accountability over the appointment and payment of third-party managers is lacking in Bill C-7.

Concerning delays in funding, Bill C-7 places no obligations on the federal government with respect to the timely provision of funding to first nations. First nations regularly experience delays in the flow of funding. Bill C-7 fails to put any form of obligation on the department to provide funding in a timely and efficient manner to first nations.

For example, we are under comprehensive funding arrangements where we get our funding on a monthly basis, based on the system that if we spend a dollar on social development we have to account for it every month. When we submit the reports, the department, in this region, takes about six months to look at the reports, and we usually have “pulled B&Ds”, as they call them. We usually are pulled by $20,000 a month. In a given year, that's $200,000, and for a small community, that's lots. We have been struggling with that for a number of years.

¾ (0820)

Regarding the role of an impartial person or body, inclusion of a person or body to hear complaints from any band member will not promote good government. It will only add another burden, both financially and administratively, to first nations. An imperial person or body will have the power to make orders against the first nation. Decisions regarding the allocation of housing, jobs, and education moneys are just a few of the areas that will be affected.

On the consultation process, the consultation process of Bill C-7 was a dismal failure. The government sought to impose its policies and desired results. This made the consultation more about what the government wished to see, not what first nations truly desire. It was for these reasons that we refused to participate in the government-designed consultation process.

On non-derogation of aboriginal and treaty rights, Bill C-7 has failed to include any clause relating to the non-derogation of aboriginal and treaty rights. I must express in the strongest terms that this is unacceptable.

On powers of council over first nations self-government negotiations, Bill C-7 is merely a reinstatement of the powers first nations governments are already restricted to by the current Indian Act. Bill C-7 will force those first nations with custom election codes to amend their codes within two years of the coming into force of Bill C-7.

On the time for implementation, cost, resources, and administrative difficulties, the timeframe for the costs associated with the implementation of Bill C-7 and provision of resources to the first nations has not been well thought out or planned. Bill C-7 requires first nations to develop the codes within two years of coming into force. If a first nation refuses or is unable to complete these codes, the minister will create regulations to enforce compliance with Bill C-7.

We have no idea what these future regulations will contain, and where the resources will come from for first nations to obtain the necessary expertise to develop these codes is uncertain. Expenses of conducting committee consultation to develop codes and community referenda will be significant, yet no funding is identified for such activities.

In conclusion, with the greatest respect, we must state that the SCTC cannot support Bill C-7. We recommend that Bill C-7 be withdrawn in its entirety and that the federal government engage in proper consultations and negotiations with our first nation and other first nations regarding self-government matters in the spirit and intent of the treaties that were signed by our ancestors and the Crown over a hundred years ago.

With that, committee members are asked to read the summaries that we have provided.

I'd like to acknowledge here today Maria Moore, who is also a first nations councillor for Opaskwayak Cree Nation. She has also been a staff member of our tribal council for a number of years.

If there are any detailed questions that may arise, I hope we can allow Frank Turner, Brad Regehr, and Maria Moore to answer in their expertise.

Thank you.

¾ (0825)

The Chair: I thank you very much for your presentation, and I thank you for addressing the issue of Bill C-7. That's the reason we are here.

I just want to clear up one thing. When you say the consultation process on Bill C-7 was a dismal failure, I think what you mean is--and correct me, please, if I'm wrong--the consultation before the bill was drafted.

The consultation on Bill C-7 is what we are doing, and I can tell you, we are taking nine weeks of our lives, and our riding offices are swamped. We're travelling for four weeks. I don't know of any bill that got the attention that we are giving to this.

So I want to protect my colleagues and say I won't allow anyone to criticize at least the work that we are doing.

Am I correct in assuming that what you mean is the consultations before the drafting of the bill?

Chief Phillip Buck: You are very correct, and I do apologize.

The Chair: No problem. I just wanted to clear that up.

This will be a five-minute round, and then we'll probably get a second round, or maybe third.

Mr. Pallister, welcome back.

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

Thank you for an excellent presentation. I must tell you, your presentation is almost a synopsis of many of the criticisms and observations we've heard from many other witnesses. It is an excellent overview, in fact, of the position of the official opposition, because we share in your concerns. The number of concerns that you've raised here are the ones that we are emphasizing as well.

The one thing I must observe, though, is that I would feel better about particularly the OCN Blizzard if they would stop beating up on the Portage Terriers every time they come. But we'll see if we can undo that this season.

Anyone who has travelled to your communities knows the advances you've made and the progress that has been made by your bands in terms of the governance issues that you've addressed firsthand there. I think that is the kind of leadership example that isn't true in all first nation communities. I think that's one of the problems we see with any legislation: it is designed to put a fixed set of rules in place for all bands, whereas some bands have advanced very well and other bands are facing very different challenges.

One of the issues I'd like to go into a bit more that you raised in your report is this issue of a redress officer. We're very concerned that this concept of having each band have its own complaints mechanism is just not workable. Many of the community leaders and members I've met with have said they are very concerned that this is not a workable proposal in that respect. It would put a lot of cost onto local bands, but it won't result in a real fair hearing for complaints.

Chiefs have said to me that this puts them in an untenable situation: it doesn't matter who they put in that position, they are going to be accused of favouritism; it's going to be an insider-trading kind of deal.

Would you like to elaborate on that? Maybe there is another model you would propose. Perhaps, Mr. Turner, I could ask you this question.

¾ (0830)

Mr. Frank Turner: Thank you for that question. And I know you've asked that question many times during this process. We have reviewed some of the tapes throughout the proceedings, so we are quite prepared.

In regard to an impartial person you speak about, I think even the government and chiefs and councils are no different from any government out there that is elected. They are elected by the people of their constituency, and so is each and every one of you. If you don't function in a proper and good manner, supporting the people you represent, then there is an election time that comes around. So that's the process we see in our first nations, that chiefs and councils that do not function or do not support community members' desires will have to answer to them at the polls.

I think that process has worked. We can only speak for our tribal area. We've seen it, and we have consistent chiefs in the OCN community, in the Swampy Cree area; the chiefs are re-elected over and over again. So we're assuming that the people are generally happy with that leadership, because of the consistency with which people are re-elected over time, with the same chief for about 12 years. So I don't think we need a complaint department.

Mr. Brian Pallister: On the issue of the enforcement officers, you've reviewed the minutes, so you know I--

Mr. Frank Turner: On the issue of enforcement officers, what authority do they really have? Nothing. So to allow them to walk into a house, shoulders high...that's not going to work.

Mr. Brian Pallister: No.

Mr. Frank Turner: Also, there's the cost of these enforcement officers. First nations are very limited in the funding aspect of enforcement officers they currently have at the reserve level.

Some of the first nations have entered into management agreements with the RCMP, who actually have buildings, people stationed within the first nation itself. So they use that.

Mr. Brian Pallister: We heard from over a hundred chiefs across Canada on this, and there are very, very few who have any interest or any support whatsoever for the concept of them having enforcement people as an arm of their authority. There is very little support for that concept.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Pallister.

Mr. Martin, five minutes.

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Thank you very much, Chief Buck, and all the members of the Swampy Cree Tribal Council. It's an excellent brief. It summarizes in a very comprehensive way the many, many flaws of this bill. I think the briefs we've heard in this province, Manitoba, will be the most useful--to me, at least--in forming the amendments that we'll be seeking.

Let me start, though, by telling you what the first witness to this round of consultation said. The first witness was Minister Nault. He said “...the Bill has been written by over 10,000 First Nations people who worked in partnership and in good faith with my government.” In other words, he was making the point that the first round of consultation was actually to ask you what you wanted, and then that's what wrote this bill.

So I guess I'd ask you if you feel that you were adequately consulted at that stage, and if you were, would these be the priorities, bureaucratic tinkering? If you wanted the Indian Act changed, would you have chosen these things that you see in Bill C-7, if you were genuinely asked what you want?

¾ (0835)

Mr. Frank Turner: Thank you for the question, Mr. Martin.

We don't agree that the consultation was drafted by those 10,000 members you speak about. That draft bill came along in front of the consultation process.

We have a membership of 13,000 within the Swampy Cree area. So that's how many people were consulted, 10,000.

We believe the consultation was flawed because--a simple reason--the draft ran in front of the consultation process. So that's why--

Mr. Pat Martin: It was already written.

Mr. Frank Turner: It was already written.

Mr. Pat Martin: The meetings were more to tell you what was in the bill rather than what you--

Mr. Frank Turner: Yes, that's exactly it, and that's why we opposed it. That's why the chiefs opposed it in our area, but to come forward and tell you that story here where we are today.

Mr. Pat Martin: Yes, right in the Hansard. Thank you.

There have been allegations made. Mr. Pallister is correct that overwhelmingly people have told us that they are opposed to the bill, but those few who do have some positive things to say about it.... There have been allegations made that they were--to use strong language--either bribed to say nice things about it, or blackmailed if they wouldn't say nice things about it.

We have some fairly concrete evidence that people were told that they had better fall in line with the FNGA or their funding would be threatened, or programs they had been waiting for for a long time might never materialize, and so on. Do you have reason to believe that anybody was coerced into cooperating with the FNGA by either the minister's office or INAC?

Mr. Frank Turner: This is where I get scared. As an executive director of Swampy Cree Tribal Council.... We depend upon the support of the federal government and the Manitoba regional office.

The person I speak about is present in this building. We had a meeting on June 11.

Please bear with me, because this will affect our relationship with the department.

The Chair: You have a minute and 15 seconds, so be aware of that. I will allow time at the end.

Mr. Frank Turner: Very straightforward, he said as long as we realign ourselves with the eight priorities the minister has imposed upon the first nations, or the government--and the governance act is one of them.... He said we will not get any special preference unless we realign ourselves with these priorities, and the FNGA is one of them; it would be easier for us to get funding if we support the FNGA--end of quote. I have it verbatim, and I also have it on tape.

The Chair: One minute.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Frank Turner: Those are the things we are faced with.

Mr. Pat Martin: You aren't the only one who has led us to believe this. In fact, I went up to one reserve that was put under third-party management for no good reason other than the fact that they oppose the FNGA, they believe. They took it to Federal Court, and they won their case. It was overturned at Federal Court. They believe it was tied directly to their opposition, to not falling in line with this program.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Martin.

Ms. Neville.

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

Thank you very much for your presentation here this morning. You've obviously put a fair bit of time and thought into your preparations.

You're undoubtedly aware that the committee has come out to meet the community after first reading of the bill in the House of Commons. This allows significant opportunity for change and input into Bill C-7. Normally a bill goes out for discussion after second reading and it's a little more fixed.

I'm interested in knowing how the Manitoba framework agreement initiative has impacted on your operations as communities. When I listened to your brief, I heard about all of the things that were not in it that you would like to see as part of it.

I'm wondering if you could comment on both the framework agreement initiative and what your priorities would be--I know you say to scrap it, but if it's not scrapped--for change in the bill.

¾ (0840)

Mr. Frank Turner: The framework agreement initiative was the product of the federal government, or Minister Irwin, at the time. We felt at the time it was a good process that worked with the first nations in the consultation part of it. A lot of data has been collected from that.

Its purpose was to develop government structures within first nations at their pace. We thought it was a good project at that time, but this minister came along and started hacking at it, taking chunks of it, resources-wise. So of course without resources it could not really move along in the ten years they said it would take to do this. When you start to get funding cuts, nothing can happen.

So that's what happened in that case. That's probably the reason why FNGA came into play. It was already in the back of somebody's mind at that time.

We are against the bill entirely. I'm recommending the committee vote down, in clause-by-clause, all the things in the First Nations Governance Act.

Ms. Anita Neville: Should the bill proceed? Do you have priority interests or issues to be amended?

Chief Phillip Buck: My answer to your question is no. But I understand a lot of frustration has been heard by the committee in these hearings from other individual people.

I've been a chief for a number of years and have been re-elected under the Indian Act every two years. My personal experience on that is we have tried to develop some of our resources over the years. A lot of first nations have tried to do that for 20 to 40 years. There are models that were developed by each first nation, and I think they should be considered by the federal government and implemented in the communities.

The Chair: We can have a two-minute round.

Mr. Elley.

Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I want to echo the sentiments of my colleague and chief critic for our party about your brief. It's full of things we've heard many times from first nations people across the country about this bill.

If indeed first nations have these very deep concerns about the passage of this bill and what it will do to your people, what do you think should happen? Do you think at this point we should recommend that we simply pull back from this process and get into full consultation with individual bands on the kinds of governance codes they want for their first nations? Do you think, on the other hand, we should push for huge amendments to it and have it go through? What would you like to see take place at this point?

Mr. Frank Turner: Thank you, Reed.

As I said, the government always seems to think about what is best for the Indian person--and I don't mean to offend you as members of Parliament being appointed by the House. So they sit around over there and develop this legislation or acts that will supposedly help to make the first nations better off.

What we're saying here is, with the greatest respect, the bill should be dropped in its entirety. And base the consultations and negotiations on the treaties that were signed by your ancestors along with our ancestors. That fiduciary obligation of the department must be adhered to. With that, all the government needs to do is listen to the first nations. Don't fight the first nations.

We have kids in Ottawa. Minister Nault is a kid; Matthew Coon Come is a kid. And these kids are fighting. They don't even want to talk to each other. We're the ones who are affected by all this.

So base your negotiations on the treaties that your ancestors signed along with ours. And I think that's a very simple solution. Then we'll all get along in this country.

¾ (0845)

Mr. Reed Elley: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: You make an excellent point, and I'm going to stay away from asking questions about specifics of the bill because I understand your point that you don't want any tinkering with the bill. You believe the bill should be withdrawn. And I agree that the FNGA has backed the relationship between the Government of Canada and first nations for 50 years.

A good example is in your own home town. You just hosted a conference with the southern chiefs and the MKO to talk about economic development, and at the last minute the minister cancelled because he wouldn't be in the same room as National Chief Matthew Coon Come, who was going to be there.

This has really gone over the deep end here. It's only once in a generation that the Indian Act is opened up. And the one positive here is that this has given a forum for speaker after speaker to come forward and make the point that you just made clear, that we should be concentrating on the treaty process and not on tinkering with the Indian Act.

I'd ask you to comment on one spot from the Harvard study, which makes the point that this legislation undermines the very idea of self-governance, and that you don't put governance codes first and sovereignty second; you put sovereignty first and governance codes second. Will you care to comment on the general idea there?

Mr. Frank Turner: As I said before, Mr. Chairman, perhaps we should start looking at first nations people as the original inhabitants of this land. We never intended to give everything away, but to share with the people who we helped so much in the past. People froze and people starved and we Indians came along and helped those people to survive.

As far as what Mr. Lazar said in his presentation, I can't really comment on that, but I believe that if we live up to our fiduciary obligations for the first nations of this land, we will have a better life. We are living in third-world-country situations in our first nations as we speak.

Even for the Swampy Cree Tribal Council to do this presentation, it cost us in the neighbourhood of $175,000 to be here today, which is money we don't have. You're going to reimburse two people, so that might be $30.

I can't stress enough that this bill is flawed. I think if we based it on treaties we'd be better off.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Dromisky.

Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Much has taken place before I even became a member of the committee. I just joined last week. I am certainly learning a hell of a lot, I'll tell you that. I'm not here to politicize or to go on a grandstand and try to earn votes from you or anybody else. I'm here to try to learn and to pick up as much truth as possible and not to do any politicking. All right?

We can play games with numbers, and there have been lots of reports given during the last week and this week and lots of numbers have been used in such a loosey-goosey way. Here in this report regarding reporting requirements you talk about 168 reports that have to be made. Now, I could jump to conclusions and say, hey, what does that really mean? That means perhaps four grants and 42 reports for each grant. Or it could mean 42 grants and only four reports for each one. Or it could mean 168 grants, lots of money, but only one report for each one. And you find that bothersome.

I'm concerned about what that all really means. What are we talking about here? What is bothering the chief and the band manager about all of these reports? What you're talking about doesn't make sense to me...accountability reporting.

Another thing that's emerging too is the accountability between the chief and council and the band manager and the members of the band. Is there accountability there? Is there transparency? Most of the complaints we're hearing about transparency are coming from individual members, not from the chief.

I'd like some comments, please.

¾ (0850)

Mr. Frank Turner: Thank you, Mr. Dromisky.

I think that when you talk about something like 162 reports that have to be submitted for the department according to the Auditor General, we have a couple of boxes there. Those are the reports that we submit.

Another good example is on our welfare recipients' part. If you are on welfare and you're asking for welfare, you go to the band office and there are 62 steps you have to go through before you actually walk out with something, with an answer. That's a lot of reporting.

As far as accountability to first nations members is concerned--and of course I can only speak for our region--I have attended and I have chaired community meetings where the chief and council make their presentations on the programs, on the finances, to the members. Resolutions are passed in those annual assemblies at the first nation.

Swampy Cree does the same. Each year we have an annual assembly. We bring in the Swampy Cree members to a location on a reserve where we provide the reports as a tribal council on the programs and also on the audits.

So the communities are already doing that. They provide those, and I've witnessed this. I have chaired those meetings where the first nations are asking questions on the audit.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

This concludes the question part of our meeting. I have suggested to the committee members, and I will continue to do so officially in Ottawa, that as soon as we finish the legislation on Bill C-7 and Bill C-19, unless other legislation is sent to us by the House, we should, as a committee, look into these reports.

I think everybody agrees that with that number of reports, if it's justified, it's going to take a lot of convincing. There must be a way we can improve that. As a committee, I will suggest that we undertake that responsibility.

We have five minutes for closing remarks, and they belong to you, sir.

Mr. Frank Turner: In closing, we would like again to indicate our recommendation to withdraw the bill in its entirety, clause by clause, if you must.

The committees are very aware of the hostility and the opposition toward this bill. The committee must appreciate and understand this hostility because of the reasons I have given. The committee must recognize that Bill C-7 imposes a new regime on first nations, who are engaged in their own self-government process.

The system constantly evolves, as any government system does. The intrusion into our governments is unwarranted and unacceptable. People are upset that processes entered into in good faith are being cast aside at the whim of the government. I'm talking about the FAI now.

We must insist in the strongest terms, committee members. I know a lot of you are Liberals, Bloc Québécois, and NDP here. You must remember to take those hats off, because you are not representing Prime Minister Chrétien, you are not representing Minister Nault, but you are representing the House of Commons. You must remove these hats when you come to the final conclusion of this so-called bill. Disregard it entirely, clause by clause, if you must.

It should be withdrawn. That is my case. I rest my case, and I thank you.

¾ (0855)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I agree with you, as chair of the committee, that we should remove our hats when we come to clause-by-clause and remind everyone on the committee that there are 16 hats, not just nine from the government side. Because we don't represent the government here. We don't represent the minister or the Prime Minister. Our responsibility and our duty is to the House of Commons, and that's why we try not to be too partisan in our questions.

We thank you very much for an excellent presentation.

Mr. Frank Turner: Thank you for listening to us.

The Chair: Now I invite Jean Allard, as an individual, for a ten-minute presentation.

Welcome, Jean.

Mr. Jean Allard (As Individual): I heard you mention the number 16. I guess I'm getting old and I don't count very well. Where are the other seven?

The Chair: There are votes on the budget in Ottawa. We are lucky to have the number we have here.

Mr. Jean Allard: I see. Thank you.

It hasn't taken $175,000 of your money to bring me here. It has, though, cost me 40 years of my life. I'd like you to listen to what I have to say with that in mind.

Let me go simply. I have put together in the last couple of years a piece I have so far entitled “Big Bear's Treaty: The Road to Freedom”. It is probably an iconoclastic approach to the whole idea.

First of all, I have here an article that appeared in the Globe and Mail. Some of you may have seen it, some of you may not have. I would suggest that it's a summary of my thoughts.

I would like to point out that at the root of it is the conclusion of 40 years of effort to try to understand a problem, the Indian problem, for want of a better word. I'm not sure it's the right one, but it's the one that is used.

I came to the conclusion that the problem isn't poverty; it isn't all kinds of things like that. The root of the problem is powerlessness, hopelessness. And it is rooted in a situation of exclusion--legal exclusion, exclusion of all kinds. This total system has a life of its own and wants to continue living as all systems do. They want to live and they want to grow.

The system I'm referring to is a combination of bureaucrats, a whole army of professional consultants--lawyers, accountants, psychologists, you name it--and chiefs and councils. They are all part of a system. When you hear the bureaucrats or the ministry talk on an issue and you hear the leadership of Indians talk, you don't hear two sides of the issue, you hear two voices on the same side of the issue. They both live off the same budget.

And that is the fundamental issue. Where does the dollar come from? What is the path of the dollar? Follow the dollar and it will tell you a great deal. Listen to the conversation and it won't tell you who, except for who is involved in promoting the money.

I put together this book, which is not finished. There is a workshop planned for May 26 to 27. People such as Allan Blakeney have been invited, also Claude Ryan, Harold Cardinal--a whole number of people. It's to be held at the aboriginal centre in Winnipeg. I turned down the C.D. Howe Institute because they wanted to make it their business, and I said it isn't.

I think the root of it has to be Indian women, because that's where I see the strength and the energy to get it done--maybe not all the ideas, whatever, but the drive, the energy, and the concern for their own people. Mothers care for children more than men do. I speak as a man, and I know that.

¿ (0900)

I put together this effort and I circulated it before it was finished to see what the reaction was. I got many reactions, surprisingly. You would be surprised at the number of former Indian Affairs bureaucrats who say “You are perfectly right”. They were part of a system, and they had no ability to change it. It has such momentum, such an amount of dollars tied to it, and so many careers. There are so few people who call attention to the problems. Nobody seems to be able to change it. I'm another voice calling out in the wilderness.

I've been working at it for a long time. I was an MLA in Manitoba from 1969 to 1973. I was elected as an NDP. I had been a Liberal. I had run as such. I thought, the Liberals in Manitoba have committed suicide; there's no point, it's a waste of time. Ed Schryer asked me to run, and I said okay. Dave Courchene asked me to run, actually. He was the president of the Manitoba Indian Brotherhood at the time. I said, “Dave, let me talk to Ed and see”. I did, and I said these are the conditions. He said okay, and I ran. I said I would leave if certain things happened. Eight months before the end of that four-year term I crossed the floor. I said, “It's not because I dislike you, Ed. I think you're a fine fellow. But I think I'm wasting my time. I have only one life to live, and I have things to do, and it's not to build the NDP.”

In 1974 I was a Liberal candidate federally. I had Chrétien and Trudeau come and campaign in my constituency. I found Chrétien to be a mensch, a man who was open and cared for people. I have since concluded that he has never understood the problems for which he has been responsible for 35 years. He believes that because he brought money to that system, he was helping. He wasn't. He was hurting. It's no fault of his. Nobody else seems to have understood it, and at that point I didn't, either. I met him again in 1993 in his office in Ottawa. He was interested in becoming Prime Minister. It took me little time to realize that I didn't have anything to help him do that and that he had better things to do than to talk to me. We exchanged a few words, and I left.

I kept on working at this. This fell into the hands of a fellow named John Richards, who is with the C.D. Howe Institute and teaches at Simon Fraser, and a number of other guys. They took my 195 pages, and they printed excerpts in this magazine, which they call a journal of opinion. I'm not going to read this. There are 60 pages. Apparently, it's about three times longer than anything they have ever printed. But they found it important enough to do so, and I'm honoured by that. I'll leave you this copy, or you can find other copies, I'm sure. The publishers of this would be happy to provide them to you at a reasonable price.

I can leave you this item that appeared in The Globe and Mail. It's a summary of everything I've said.

What I'd like to do is read to you a letter to the editor, which started out as a letter to me from Bob Connelly, who was director of Indian Affairs for Manitoba. He had been in education in Manitoba at Sandy Bay. He went to Ottawa. He worked there. Then he was sent to the Sorbonne in Paris for advanced studies in administration. He came back to Ottawa. He was involved in special projects. He was an acquaintance of Chrétien. He knew him well.

¿ (0905)

The Chair: You have one minute to do that.

Mr. Jean Allard: The letter is by Bob Connelly. He says that my analysis of Indian Affairs is the best he has ever come across. Until then, the one by Jack Beaver in 1979 was the best.

I don't have time to finish this, unless somebody wants to ask me a question and give me the time to read the three pages.

The Chair: They don't have the time to ask the question. We don't undertake to question unless we can do a full round.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Mr. Chair, can I ask a question?

The Chair: There's not enough time. There's fifteen seconds left.

Mr. Jean Allard: Why don't I give them back to you to deal with quietly. That's a 15-second answer.

The Chair: What I can say, sir, is that anything you leave with the clerk will be reproduced and provided to every member, all sixteen of us. Of that, we can assure you.

We thank you very much for an excellent presentation, and we look forward to reading the documents.

Ms. Anita Neville: I have a question of you, Mr. Chair. I'm wondering if you could ask Mr. Allard to leave his article from The Globe and Mail with us specifically. Thank you.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Could you please ask Mr. Allard if the book is still in print?

The Chair: Is the book still in print, Mr. Allard?

Mr. Jean Allard: Oh yes. These are two copies, one following the other. This is issue number 11, the other is issue number 12.

The Chair: Do members give me the authority to direct the clerk to purchase copies for all members?

A voice: Yes.

The Chair: Done. Thank you very much.

And now I invite, as an individual, Alan Isfeld, Waywayseeccappo Band member. I'm sure you will pronounce that differently from me.

Welcome. We have ten minutes together, and we'd like you to make your presentation, sir.

¿ (0910)

Mr. Alan Isfeld (Waywayseecappo Band Member, As Individual): Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. I hope not to offend any of you, but I hope to offend this process.

I believe that Minister Bob Nault is the creator of the problems the first nations people are facing today. One of those problems, as we are all very well aware, is around economic development. That's the partnership the federal government arranged between a first nation here in Manitoba, the Sagkeeng First Nation, and Wing Construction, a 50-year-old family company out of Thunder Bay.

I want to talk a little bit about third-party intervention policy and regime change and also about a letter I sent last night to the minister, the Prime Minister, the House of Commons, the Senate, AFN, AMC, and the Sagkeeng First Nation. I don't have time enough to go through the entire process, but I will go through as much as I can.

The letter to Minister Nault reads in part:

Indian Affairs concept of partnerships with private industry, like the one that the Department of Indian Affairs arranged between Wing Construction and the Sagkeeng First Nation is not acceptable, don't take my word for it, ask any Chief & Council if they would support what your department and others created.

On your next visit to Winnipeg or Manitoba please call me the Wing/Sagkeeng issue will be waiting for you, or your successor, with copy's of all the reports done by Indian Affairs including the $100,000.00 documented issue sent to the Auditor General, and the tri-party dispute settlement agreement you had your department develop and a copy of the PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS report that you walked away from, that would have resolved this political arranged partnership.

Then it goes on into changing the regime to impose political will. I wrote:

On national television Prime Minister Chretien says changing of regimes is very dangerous, he said who's next, show me the list, he was of course referring to President Bush and other countries.

President Bush has sent tens of thousands of American troops to IRAQ to remove Saddam Hussein with force if necessary. Bush referred to changing the IRAQ regime as removing of a cancer. Chretien said he has only 8 months left as leader, and is not too worried about himself.

We all know the United Nations said Canada is the most desirable place in the world to live, unless you are a first nation person. As first nations people we have the same fear as Prime Minister Chretien, that's because we have our own cancer and dictator, Minister Robert Nault.

However, Prime Minister Chretien supports the changing of regimes, if the change is in Canada's first nation communities. The Prime Minister has given Minister Nault a free hand to do whatever is necessary to impose Bill C-7, the new legislation being forced on first nation peoples. If any first nation person or leader disagrees with Minister Nault they have their funding cut, or are removed from their elected office, just lately Minister Nault removed two elected chiefs and councils...one being a hereditary chief the other a duly elected chief. In Ontario he removed two elected chiefs and councils in his own riding, and has removed the authority of many more first nation elected officials through a more subtle approach third party management.

However if you are willing to compromise yourself like others have with the Prime Minister you're rewarded with a plum, such as a political appointment, contract or grant through the Prime Ministers office or one of his Ministers portfolios.

To quote Prime Minister Chretien when it comes to regime change “Who's next on the list, show me the list.”

Canada's so called civilized Federal political regime, when dealing with first nations, first use a subtle policy to accomplish their desired regime change, example (THIRD PARTY MANAGEMENT) which the Prime Minister hopes to follow-up with legislative change.

History supports if government policy is not followed and political change is not reached the Canadian Federal Government will resort to armed force to achieve their political needs as they have in the recent past. Oka, Ipperwash, Williams Lake B.C. and Burnt Church are a few of the more recent examples of the abuse Canada has inflicted on first nation peoples. (...)

Canada's policy on force is no different from any other country that would impose their political will and steal the natural resources that belong to others. When Prime Minister Chretien was Minister of Indian Affairs in 1969 he introduced to parliament what was to be known as the 69 white paper, which was meant to assimilate first nations peoples into main stream society, and extinguish treaty rights, that process failed. Next the Meech Lake accord was to have first nation people fall under provincial jurisdiction as was the Charlotte Town accord they both failed, if they had accomplished this, treaty rights would have been extinguished, and first nations communities would already be under municipal law.

After all is this not exactly what the Government of Canada is still trying to do by forcing Bill C-7 on first nation people, and not allowing elected first nation leadership to sit at the negotiating table as equals, with the House of Commons Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources.

Once again Prime Minister Chretien and Minister Nault have taken the same old paternalistic attitude towards elected first nation leadership.

The Indian Act does not need to be changed, it needs to be done away with, abolished. And meaningful negotiation has to take place with elected first nation leadership, on first nation self government, where real economic development and real partnerships can take place if first nation people are ever to receive full benefit from their signed treaty's with the Federal Government.

I know if you ask any elected chief and council in Canada if they would like the Department of Indian Affairs to arrange a partnership for their communities, like the partnership they arranged between the Sagkeeng First Nation in Manitoba and Wing Construction. The answer would probably be no-thank-you.

Minister Jane Stewart confirmed in the House of Commons June 1999 that this was an arranged partnership, this arranged partnership as outlined in a letter from the Office of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development October 28, 1996 has destroyed Wing Construction a 50 year old family business from Thunder Bay Ontario, and now has Wing Construction and the Sagkeeng First Nation before the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench. While at the same time the orchestrator of this heinous and evil mess the Department of Indian Affairs sits on the sidelines claiming, that they're not a party to what they created.

The Chair: Excuse me, excuse me. I apologize for interrupting. I will allow you a little bit more time. I would ask you to slow down a bit, because someone has to translate this.

Mr. Alan Isfeld: That recorder will keep up with me.

The Chair: Because of that I'll give you more time.

Mr. Alan Isfeld: Thank you.

So, Prime Minster Chretien can you tell us, the first nation peoples, and explain to the Canadian public what is the difference between your policy on regime change regarding first nation leadership, being enforced by your Minister of Indian Affairs Robert Nault, and to use your words, from the very dangerous regime change proposed by President Bush?

That's the end of the first one. The next one is on no accountability for Minister Nault under Bill C-7. I probably won't have time to read that, but in that document you'll find that what Minister Nault is really after through Bill C-7 is to remove paragraph 83(1)(b) of the Indian Act, and that's the ability of the chiefs and councils to consolidate their band debt, which they have been able to do in the past, to pay off private creditors.

Without the support of private creditors, the first nations will never achieve self-government. We'll never realize that. Every government in history has been dependent upon the relationships in the world and the good faith of private industry and private business to govern their jurisdictions. Without that credit base, first nations people will never, ever, see self-government, and Bob Nault knows that. I think that's a deliberate act on his part.

Also, the Sagkeeng First Nation wrote a band council resolution on March 3, 1999. It was rejected by the Minister of Indian Affairs. So another one was written, March 9, 1999, asking the minister under these sections of the Indian Act to consolidate the band debt and work out an agreement with Wing Construction and pay out that debt. The minister refused. That's why this section of the Indian Act is being removed.

The minister hasn't gone far enough. If he wants the first nations people to be on an equal playing field, he must remove sections 29 and 89 of the Indian Act as well. Those sections are not there to protect first nations people, although our first nations people believe that. They are there to protect the federal government.

Our people don't own anything that lives on the reserves. Anything that's done with capital dollars belongs to the federal Crown. We're only users of it. We're being used.

¿ (0915)

The Chair: Thank you.

We don't have time for rounds, unless.... Can we do a round of one minute each?

Mr. Alan Isfeld: One more thing, if I may.

The Chair: Okay, we'll give you the three minutes left.

Mr. Alan Isfeld: Thank you. One more minute.

As I look around the table, I see that in history since 1876 nothing has really changed. The farther forward we move, the farther back we fall. And the reason I say that is our people are educated in the same institutions as your people are educated in and we've developed the same abilities as you have, yet I don't see any first nations elected leadership sitting at this table determining the outcome of our people in the future.

It's the same as 1876. The only thing is you're better dressed.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I now invite the Southern Chiefs' Organization, Grand Chief Margaret Swan, to approach this table.

We have one hour together. We invite you to make your presentation, and in an hour I hope you'll allow some time for questions.

Welcome.

Grand Chief Margaret Swan (Southern Chiefs' Organization): [Witness speaks in her native language]

I'd like to start off by welcoming you to Treaty 1 territory. I spoke in that language because it is my first language, and one of the original languages of our lands here.

I am Grand Chief of the Southern Chiefs' Organization, which represents 34 first nations in southern Manitoba. The population base of this area is about 70,000, on and off reserve. The Southern Chiefs' Organization is composed of Ojibway, Cree, Dakota, and Lakota first nations, and it encompasses Treaties 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 within our territory.

I am the political spokesperson of the Southern Chiefs' Organization. In Manitoba, they call me “the mouth of the south”.

SCO was created in 1998 by the southern chiefs to protect, preserve, promote, and enhance first nations peoples' inherent rights, languages, customs, and traditions, and treaty application and the implementation of the spirit and intent of the treaty-making process. This is probably something you've heard throughout your hearings across our lands, that we are more interested in treaty implementation.

Some of the objectives of SCO are to provide a common front for initiatives mandated by the chiefs' summit meeting, and to promote and assist member first nations in providing good government for their first nations, which Minister Nault calls “good tools for governance”. Maybe some day we'll show your government some really good tools for governance.

Other objectives are to assist members of first nations in promoting and defending treaty and aboriginal rights, as mandated by the chiefs' summit, and to assist first nations in holding the crown and provincial governments responsible for the fulfillment of their fiduciary duties, responsibilities, and obligations when it comes to our people.

For the record, I want to present a petition of about 5,000 signatures that we started in SCO. I'll leave it here. I also want to take this opportunity to thank Pat Martin of the NDP for assisting us by presenting this petition in the House of Commons, which we had thought would make somewhat of a difference because of the fact this was only the beginning of our obtaining signatures from our people for the purpose of rejecting Bill C-7.

So thank you, Pat, for your work and the help you provided to southern chiefs people.

I also want to talk about consultation. Some time back, Minister Nault said that he had held major consultations that were a success. He stated, “Ten thousand people participated in the most extensive consultations Canada has ever held with First Nations people. To ignore their views would be irresponsible. We have listened, and we have learned.” This is such a misguided and dishonest statement to make to the Canadian public, because it is not a fact.

¿ (0920)

It is extremely irresponsible on the part of the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs to make such a statement, because the fact of the matter is these consultations were not a success. The leadership of this province, of this country, and of first nations people who are going to be specifically impacted by this legislation were not properly consulted. In fact, the leadership was basically ignored because we said no to Bill C-7. The Minister chose to go to urban areas to have his consultations, because we said no.

At most of the consultation forums there were maybe twenty people at the most who showed up at any of these hearings, and this was a huge number for the forums. Probably about half of those individuals were employees of the Department of Indian Affairs.

So I think it's important to note that we have at least 5,000 signatures, and we're still working on more.

I also want to state that, yes, in some instances we have our differences across this country, just like the NDP government, the Liberal government, and the Canadian Alliance have. However, let me state unequivocally that the Assembly of First Nations does not support Bill C-7, nor do they think it can be fixed through amendments. Here in Manitoba, we support that statement, and I'm sure you'll hear the same in other provinces.

As well, you've probably heard throughout the course of your hearings that there are different reports and recommendations out there, such as by the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. In our opinion, the report of the commission continues to sit on someone's shelf collecting dust, and the recommendations aren't being followed. The recommendations of the Penner report are also not being followed. I think every document, which has cost the government millions and millions of dollars, has pointed to having our leaders and people involved in a sincere partnership in government on anything that's going to impact our people, and to looking at the treaty and inherent rights of our people.

However, government tries to assimilate us and to terminate our treaty status and inherent status as indigenous first nations people in this country, without properly and fairly dealing with the issue of lands and natural resources, which we never gave up the right to.

Potentially, the FNGA is attempting to municipalize first nations governments. This is not the type of self-government envisioned by first nations.

As well, Bill C-7 attempts to clarify the legal status of first nations by incorporation, which would make reserve land assets seizable by outside creditors and governments. This is not self-government to us, and we're not prepared to be recognized as provincial governments. This is not our understanding of our treaties.

Finally, I'm going to comment a bit more on Minister Nault's approach, which to us is nothing more than arrogance and paternalism. It's sad to say that in doing what he's doing he must obviously have the support of his colleagues in cabinet; otherwise, this process would have been stalled or stopped somewhere along the way.

¿ (0925)

Minister Nault was invited to several assemblies of Manitoba chiefs here in the province, as well as to the southern chiefs' summit. In fact, as recently as last week he had committed to being in Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak territory, and he didn't show up. That's been the story with your minister, supposedly our minister, over the course of the last two years. That's been our reality; he's not accessible.

They can keep saying “Minister Nault”, but I recognize Minister Nault as nothing more than a choreboy or a puppet of the federal government. But he's the one who is coming out there on the front lines and even creating organizations, women's organizations and urban organizations, to follow the government's agenda.

In the case of some of our first nations in the south, there has even been what I'll call carrot dangling, where Minister Nault has said if you do this and work with our agenda, we'll provide you with moneys for economic development. That's clear blackmail.

Again I'll state, I believe if anybody needs tools for good governance, it's the federal government of this country. And I'll keep telling our youth that, because I really believe in the future. It's our youth who are going to change the face of this government.

I'm not going to comment too much more on reports such as the Penner report, the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, and that kind of stuff.

On a final note, I'm just going to state that we reject Bill C-7, and we're going to continue to do what we can to gain public and international support to reject that initiative because we sincerely believe it's designed to terminate our status as the first peoples of these lands without properly addressing the issue of lands and resources.

[Witness speaks in her native language]

I would also like to make the point that I--and I said this in my language when I started off--am very disappointed sitting at this table to not see any of my own people, the descendants of the original landowners, sitting here with me to listen to me and hear our cause. This is totally not a democratic country if this is how we are governed.

Meegwetch.

Voices: Hear, hear!

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We will start with a five-minute round. Mr. Elley, you have five minutes.

Mr. Reed Elley: Thank you very much, Grand Chief, for coming and sharing that with us.

Again, I want to say that what you are saying to us we hear time and time and time again, that first nations people generally do not agree with this legislation and see it as something imposed from on high. In fact, some people have suggested the First Nations Governance Act is really an incremental way for Jean Chrétien to do what he failed to do in 1969.

I'd be interested to have your comments on that and on where that leads us down the road. I think most of us have a sincere desire to see native people across the country do well, just like everybody. Will this kind of legislation really allow that to take place in the final analysis? What are your comments on that?

I also want to say I share your concerns about our governmental institutions in Ottawa in terms of the democratic deficit we have there, which we see time and time again.

Those are some comments from me, and if you have any comments on what I said, I'd appreciate them.

¿ (0930)

Grand Chief Margaret Swan: With respect to the 1969 white paper, in fact I have something in my bag back there. Something happened to me when we started to talk about this whole issue of the governance initiative a few years back. I had picked up some twenty-dollar bills from the bank and one of them appeared to be very oldish. I looked at the year on it and it was 1969. I'm a spiritual person, and I believe that was the Creator's sign to tell me yes, this is a follow-up to the 1969 white paper.

And yes, because of the fact that first nations people are getting educated in those systems that were so foreign to my ancestors, and yes, because of the fact that somewhere down the road we're going to be the majority and not the minority, I believe the government is trying to fast-track the process of terminating our treaty status without fairly dealing with the land and natural resources issue. We believe that.

I need not tell you that the history of first nations people in this country is different from that of any other people in Canada. The fact of the matter is, our people have been so oppressed and so controlled by legislation such as the Indian Act that it's going to take a whole generation's journey for us to heal because of the damage that's been done by government policy.

With respect to this initiative, all we're saying is let us decide for ourselves where we're going and what we're going to follow for good tools of governance within ourselves. It definitely won't be the models you're using.

The Chair: Mr. Martin, you have five minutes

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you, Grand Chief Swan, for a very powerful presentation.

I don't think it is necessary to go through this bill clause by clause, because you've made the point very clearly that you don't see the merits of this bill at all.

I just want to start by saying that it's a little galling for me to sit here and listen to the Canadian Alliance criticize this bill when, if we look at the history of the origins of this bill, it was due to a systematic campaign on the part of the Canadian Alliance in the House of Commons--

The Chair: Here we go again.

Mr. Pat Martin: I'm trying to make the case that there was--

The Chair: Cut the mike.

You're attacking another political party at this table. We are one committee. We know you've been assigned to do that job, but don't use this committee to do it. Let's stick to the rules here. We've been through this four times already, and you're trying again. You're talking to the people in the crowd, and we ask you to stop that.

Voices: Hear, hear!

The Chair: Let's deal with the issue.

Mr. Pat Martin: We have valid concerns here.

There is a second point I'd like to make. As a preface, when you look around the table, with the exception of Ms. Neville it is largely a group of white men in suits. I did move a motion early on in this committee to broaden the membership of the committee to include three extra people at the table, one from the Assembly of First Nations, one from the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, and one from the Native Women's Association of Canada. This was voted down by the people here. We actually lost by one vote, although there was one Liberal who voted in favour of the motion. We would have had three aboriginal people at this table with voice but no vote, but at least we would have been seized wholly of the issue of dealing with this complex document. We should state that for the record too.

It was a great honour for me to table the petition--

The Chair: Excuse me for interrupting. I just want to have the witness's permission, because the cameras are on. Is it okay with you?

Grand Chief Margaret Swan: Actually, I think it's good for all Canadian citizens to see something like this. If you want accountability and transparency, here it is.

The Chair: I just wanted to know, and I apologize for that.

Mr. Pat Martin: I was speaking to the fact that you had 5,000 people who consciously signed the petition we tabled in the House of Commons. Bob Nault, the Minister of Indian Affairs, claims that he consulted 10,000 people across the country. We should note that he paid $10 million for that sham and mockery of a consultation. At least the 5,000 people you've signed up to date knew what they were talking about, knew the substance of the bill, and knew that they didn't want it.

If you could, if you feel that you were adequately consulted in the preparation of Bill C-7, please comment further on it.

¿ (0935)

Grand Chief Margaret Swan: As I stated in my presentation, the fact of the matter is we were not properly consulted. How do we know that those 10,000 people the minister claims to have consulted were in fact our people who are going to be impacted by this legislation? One of his proposals for consultation is to do it through the Internet. If that is not a sham, what is?

So one of our big concerns with this whole process is that the consultation process has a major flaw. It's a paternalistic, “we know what's good for you” approach. That's no longer acceptable to first nations in this country.

Mr. Pat Martin: Given the overwhelming opposition to this bill everywhere we go in the country, if they go ahead and try to ram this bill down the throats of people who don't want it, how will first nations react if they won't accept these new governance codes? How is the government going to force first nations to fall in line with a bunch of codes and regulations they neither want nor had any part in putting together?

Grand Chief Margaret Swan: First of all, I want to make it very clear that nowhere did we ever say we were against accountability and transparency. Those are the middle names of first nations. The fact is we're the most transparent government in this country.

You talked about reports earlier. We are required to submit report after report. Gone are the days when the government's going to force us to do what we don't want to do. That's no longer going to be acceptable. If we have to go, as we have, to the international forum, the international courts to be heard, that's what we will do. If we have to work harder to educate our mainstream, non-indigenous brothers and sisters to support us because all we're asking for is fairness, that's what we'll do. If we have to do something that is referred to as civil disobedience, like the Oka crisis, that is where we'll go.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Hubbard is next, for five minutes.

Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good morning, Chief.

I was just thinking when you were making your presentation, the first letters of my last name are Hu, and for a good period of time Elijah Harper was my seatmate. So we do have some connections. I guess another party defeated Mr. Harper, but he did represent your people very well. I certainly enjoyed the time I spent with him in the House.

This morning we're talking about the Indian Act, which goes back to the 1870s. In the 1990s an attempt was made to make changes to the Indian Act. Ron Irwin was the minister, and at that time we talked about an option: you could live as a first nation under the act of 1876 or the new act that was proposed in 1997. That died on the order paper. Then, of course, we came to our present situation with Bill C-7.

It's been somewhat disappointing that the chiefs, who received letters from the minister and the department on Bill C-7, were encouraged to go to their people, look at the proposals, and try to develop a good governance act. Apparently a decision was made not to participate in that.

It's been somewhat perplexing to us as members of the House that many people who could have put their opinions into this legislation did not. I know you mentioned 10,000 people, and that's certainly a lot of people if they all walked by us one at a time. But those are the people who wanted to participate.

I wonder, Chief, if you could let our committee know why the chiefs decided not to become actively involved in the process.

¿ (0940)

Grand Chief Margaret Swan: First of all, Minister Nault would not meet with us collectively. He found ways of meeting with this group and that group, and played divide-and-conquer tactics.

In 1993 we signed an agreement called the Manitoba framework agreement initiative. In the long term, we believed that would help us come up with the good tools of governance Minister Nault always talks about within a ten-year process, or longer if we needed the time.

I'll go back to the fact that the history of first nations people in this country is different from that of any other peoples in Canada--the oppression, the control, and the “you're no good" paternalistic approach have been there for a long time. Because of that history our people are in a state they don't deserve to be in. They're in a state where you cannot even meet their basic needs.

How the heck are you going to talk to those people about governing themselves when they're trying to sort out how to feed and clothe their children for the next month? That's the reality of so many of our first nations communities. So in that sense, consultation about governance has also been flawed. That's why they elect their chiefs and councils. They expect us to look after those interests.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: When you study Bill C-7, it indicates that each first nation will have an opportunity over a period of time to develop its own rules for governance. How could you be more generous than saying to people, develop your rules, and then put them in writing and live by them? How would that be offensive? I'm not sure how you perceive doing your own thing has become....

Grand Chief Margaret Swan: I guess that is not the offensive part to us; however, I'll point to the fact that the Manitoba framework agreement initiative was to do that.

What's offensive to us is the paternalistic approach that's taken by government in trying to municipalize our communities to a point where our lands could be eliminated in the future.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Pallister, for four minutes.

Mr. Brian Pallister: We've had the chance to talk before, so you know a number of my concerns. But I'm interested in knowing a couple of things. I'll ask you one really straightforward question.

Do any of your chiefs support the idea of appointing their own enforcement officers, their own ombudsmen on their reserves?

Grand Chief Margaret Swan: I can't answer that. I'm here to talk about Bill C-7 and to say that all our chiefs are against Bill C-7.

But we are looking at systems within our own communities to deal with our own issues and we've been doing that for over a year now. Some of us have had major discussions within our assemblies talking about accountability, transparency, and taking each other to task when one of our leaders steps out of line.

But surely to God, our plan is if one of our colleagues does something wrong, we're not going to appoint them to a cushy position to be ambassador of another country. We're going to do it differently.

Mr. Brian Pallister: That was a good answer, an excellent response, as I would expect.

And of course we know that most aboriginal governments work quite well. Some do not. I think it's important to acknowledge that, and you have in your answer.

As you and I have talked about in the past, there are situations sometimes where individuals need to have redress. They need to have the ability to make appeal or to get a response from somebody. The Auditors General--not just the present one, Sheila Fraser, but also the previous one, Denis Desautels--have said the department has not done a good job of providing any redress mechanisms.

We know--or you and I agree, I think--that a model where each band would deal with complaints internally with a chief-appointed ombudsman would work no better than having the Prime Minister appoint his own ethics counsellor. It will not work.

What model might you suggest that would work better to make sure that minorities on reserves or individual band members, women, have the opportunity to have their complaints heard and dealt with fairly and openly?

¿ (0945)

Grand Chief Margaret Swan: I'm not sure I would suggest any specific model. About a year ago with one of our summits we did make a presentation to our chiefs and provided them with documents to look over, and I believe there were about three different models in there.

But again, I would tell any other government to butt out. Let us set up our own systems. We've adopted too many of yours. Clearly they don't work for mainstream Canadians, so how the heck are they going to work for first peoples?

Mr. Brian Pallister: The Human Rights Act doesn't apply. There's a myth going around that the Human Rights Act will now apply and be available to protect aboriginal people in this country, as it does all other Canadians. But that's not true, because there are definitely interpretive clauses and weasel words in this act that will make sure that isn't the case.

Do you see it as important--I know you're aware that the National Aboriginal Women's Association does--that the Canadian Human Rights Act be available to aboriginal women, in particular, and others so they would have those same protections that all other Canadians take for granted? How do you feel about that?

Grand Chief Margaret Swan: I think in the interim that might be acceptable. But again, I'll point to the fact that we need to come up with our own systems as first nations peoples. We need to be very creative in how we do that and we need the time and resources to do it.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Martin, four minutes.

Mr. Pat Martin: Staying to the more general issue here, a lot of people view this whole exercise as a missed opportunity, because virtually everyone has come to accept that the Indian Act is 130 years of social tragedy. And here, once a generation, once every 50 years, we open the Indian Act up. Yet rather than deal with the issues of substance, as you said, issues of land management, resources, etc., things that could lead to the true emancipation of aboriginal people, we are tinkering with bureaucracy in the most colonial and Eurocentric and paternalistic way possible by imposing bureaucratic tinkering.

I give you the opportunity to state again what the real priorities are, where you have given voice to plan this exercise or to say what issues we should be dealing with, where these energies should be going, rather than this bureaucratic tinkering.

Grand Chief Margaret Swan: Number one, I guess we'll keep saying over and over again, recognize the treaties, treaty implementation with respect to our lands and resources. That's where we want to start. And whether government likes it or not, that's where we are going, because we have no choice. We have people who are very educated in your system today and we are going to beat you at your own game. That's the reality.

Mainstream Canadians are starting to understand that government has not been fair to the descendants of the original landowners, and we will get that support with the proper public education.

So the bottom line is treaty implementation with respect to our lands and resources. And all that means is that we're asking for fairness. Be fair to us. It is as simple as that.

Mr. Pat Martin: Good. Thank you.

There is an excellent quote that I keep going back to from this Harvard study. There is a professor there who studied first nations governance and said that good governance without sovereign powers is about as likely to succeed as sovereign powers would be without good governance.

Do you think we are putting the cart before the horse? Should issues of true sovereignty and self-governance be dealt with first, then the codes and regulations to follow?

Grand Chief Margaret Swan: Again, history speaks for itself. Governments always put the cart before the horse when it comes to first nations people, and we are going to start taking control and responsibility for our lives. If that means going to the international forum, public education and all that kind of stuff, you are simply making us work harder. You've put us under a great big microscope for a long, long time. You don't realize it, but you have only made us stronger. We are survivors.

We are going to be just fine. You may think you can get away with the paternalistic approach in this day and age, but that's going to change in the very near future. I want to remind this committee of that fact.

It might start right here in Winnipeg, the biggest reserve in Canada. You'll see those kinds of changes happening for our people. After seven generations, we are going to come full circle and take our rightful place in this land. It may not be in my generation, but you'll see it in the next for sure.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you.

The Chair: Miss Neville.

¿ (0950)

Ms. Anita Neville: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Grand Chief, you and I have talked many times, and I am pleased to see you here today.

I will take a slightly different approach. I don't like the paternalistic approach any more than you do, so I want to ask you a little bit about the role of women in your communities and some of the issues of concern to them.

You and I both know that the women in the communities are seeking greater access to the decision-making and ways to participate in the decision-making in the communities and wanting more accountability. I would like your views on how you would see that happen.

I would also be interested in your comments on the issues, as they relate to women, in the areas of registration, first nations membership, matrimonial property. Yesterday we had a rather poignant presentation by a young woman in Thompson on the matter of dower rights.

I am interested from the perspective of a woman leader in your community, as to the role of women and how one advances many of their concerns.

Grand Chief Margaret Swan: First of all, by virtue of the fact that I'm a woman and chief of the Southern Chief's Organization and the first in Canada, I guess that speaks for itself that we are getting very involved. Secondly, there are five female chiefs within our province, I believe.

We are working on creative ways of getting our women involved. I believe that at the last chiefs-in-assembly there was a resolution passed to incorporate a women's committee into the assembly as part of the governing body.

As well, when it was International Women's Day, we did have a forum at the aboriginal centre here in Winnipeg. And I believe that within the next month in this province we're organizing a meeting of our women from our first nations communities on and off reserve.

We're doing everything we can to get them more involved and empowered, as well as our youth. That's coming slowly but surely. Again, I'll say it wasn't in our culture to keep women behind the scenes. That changed when the settlers came, because the union agents or the governments of the day only wanted to negotiate with men and it was only men who were allowed to be chiefs.

We're going back to some of our old ways. This doesn't say we want to go back and live in teepees with no TV or cellular phones; that wouldn't be reality. Sometimes that's what's said when we say we want to go back to some of our traditional stuff.

I can't really comment on the matrimonial property rights and that kind of stuff, because currently I'm not that familiar with it. But I can say personally that I was taken to the cleaners by a man. Not Perth's, either.

Some voices: Oh, oh!

The Chair: We now have a three-minute round. Mr. Pallister.

Mr. Brian Pallister: I'm tempted to give you the opportunity to get into detail on that last comment, Margaret, but perhaps I'd better not.

You know I've been working pretty closely with some people in my riding who are concerned about getting to the bottom of some problems they had in that particular first nations community. We're finding it difficult to get the support of the minister and the support of the department in trying to resolve some long-standing differences there.

One of the concerns I have with the act, and this is a difficult issue, but we speak a lot and we use the word “paternalistic” and so on, but the reality is that under the current Indian Act, which of course is the most paternalistic legislation in the country, we have that environment created, and this is a proposal to change that. One of the concerns I have with this act is that it increases the power of the minister in some small respects to require financial statements and so on and so forth. But it removes the ability of the minister to intervene in all other cases. In other words, he couldn't appoint a third-party manager for Dakota Tipi. He wouldn't be able to appoint a third-party manager for a band that was having difficulties, if they weren't financial. And what that does, and what the minister will tell you as well, is it's up to the RCMP.

I don't think that's good enough. I don't think that protects minorities and women and people on reserves. I don't think that's fair. I think that's a cop out. That's an abdication, in my mind.

I would really appreciate, and I know it's a difficult question to ask you, Margaret, but I.... You know, I'm concerned to just say “Well, it's up to the band”. Well, the problem is at the band level, sometimes. Not always. In fact, seldom. But sometimes it is a problem at the band level for people to get treated fairly. What do we do when that happens, if the minister's not going to have that responsibility? If we go ahead with this act, the minister's not going to have the obligation or the right to intervene, unless it's financial. Do you agree with that?

¿ (0955)

Grand Chief Margaret Swan: I guess I'll go back to the statement I made earlier, that we need to establish our own systems, with the input of our own people when it comes to dealing with that kind of issue. The fact is that despite the minister calling an election in that community, it has not made much of a difference. And we are working with that committee in a mediation-type way. My hope is that from that we will learn something and find a way of helping other communities to establish our own mechanisms to deal with that type of issue, should it arise in another first nation within our area.

That's what we're striving for. That's part of self-government to us, for us. But we have to have a say in where we're going with this. We don't want someone from the outside coming in and saying we'll do this for you. That hasn't worked and it's never going to work. It has to come from our people.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Martin, for three minutes.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Grand Chief Swan, it's a widely held belief that this bill is really more about the termination of status, the termination of rights, and the avoidance of living up to the fulfilment of treaties. The evidence seems to be the absence of any non-derogation clause in the bill.

If this is just a paranoid idea on people's part that the government is actually trying to get out from under their obligations in dealing with treaties once and for all, why wouldn't they put a non-derogation clause in there to say that nothing in this bill shall derogate from aboriginal rights, etc.?

Do you want to speak to that?

Grand Chief Margaret Swan: I guess it's clear cut that they would not put in a non-derogation clause, because clearly the plan is to terminate our status without properly dealing with the lands and resources issue.

Furthermore, it's my understanding that behind the scenes, government has talked about doing away with the non-derogation clause in all its documents as they pertain to my people. I say this is trying to fast-track the process, because you're losing court battles when it comes to treaty rights across this country. You don't even follow your own court decisions, and that's really sad.

It's really sad that some of us have to go outside this country to other countries to state clearly that Canada is not the best place in the world in which to live--not for my people. It's sad when that's what you have to do.

Clearly, the government's agenda is self-serving to get away from the responsibility they have to us, the descendants of the original landowners.

Mr. Pat Martin: You raised the point again that has been raised many times, that there was carrot-dangling--and you even used the terms “bribery” and “blackmail”--to try to coerce people into coming along.

Yesterday we had a group that admitted they were given $54,000 to hold seven of these consultation meetings. You know, I can hold a townhall meeting for about $250. It doesn't take me $8,000 to hold one of these townhall meetings. You weren't given any money to prepare this comprehensive brief, to do the 5,000 petitions, or even to do an analysis of Bill C-7.

Can you speak to the fact that you have knowledge that some people were being coerced or browbeaten in a financial way to fall in line with the First Nations Governance Act?

À (1000)

Grand Chief Margaret Swan: Yes. There are several first nations within southern Manitoba that were offered moneys to participate in this whole process. Some of them refused. I believe you even have some of them making presentations to your table.

I got $5, but that was based on an old agreement that should have been changed.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): I was interested to hear you talk about the framework agreement, and we've heard from others as well as you that it is seen as an honourable and interesting alternative to Bill C-7, or the whole process.

Quite a lot of resources were poured into that agreement from 1994 on, and I would have assumed that if this had been a better alternative there would have been a certain sense of urgency in moving ahead with it. Because if we were further down the road with that process, which would have led, presumably, toward self-government and all the rest of it, we wouldn't even be talking about Bill C-7 in the context of Manitoba.

From an outsider's point of view, it's a process that was resourced, and it was essentially driven, as I understand it, by aboriginal people. It seems to look a bit leisurely, if I can put it that way--lacking a certain urgency. And I hear urgency in your voice, so I'm wondering why, in this particular case, it doesn't seem quite as urgent when you look at how it's gone to date. It's been a long time.

Grand Chief Margaret Swan: First of all, if you hear urgency in my voice, it's because you're fast-tracking the government's agenda. I think it needs to stop right here, right now, with Bill C-7. Amendments are not acceptable.

With the Manitoba framework agreement, less than $52 million was spent over the course of four years, which is less than what the RCAP cost. Realistically, it took a hundred and some years to get us to the mess we're in today, which was through no fault of our own, but rather because of government policy, with the residential schools and the controlling Indian Act. I need not repeat history.

With regard to looking at how we're going to govern ourselves, we may need more than ten years. Firstly, we need to look at the basic needs of our people of shelter, food, and clothing. Those three items are a priority in our communities. So many of our people are still lacking those types of things. First we need to deal with that.

Then we can begin to look at how we govern ourselves. You may be able to help us deal with that by providing what's rightfully ours with regard to lands and resources. Canada is the third richest country in the world because of its natural resources, resources we never gave up the right to. If you gave us what was rightfully ours, based on the revenue the government receives from selling those natural resources, we'd be the richest of the rich. Heck, we can decide who the next prime minister of this country is going to be, because that's how you guys do it--it's always money. That's what we need to survive and get better.

I hope that answers your question.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We have time for a third round.

In our dialogue, comments were made that were directed toward the government, and that's fine. Even if the Prime Minister or the minister is attacked, they are the government. I'd just like to set the tone that the people here are making an honest effort to try to make things better. I know that it's not individuals here who are being attacked, but we are not government. This committee is not government. We are a committee of the House of Commons. I have a lot of respect for the members who accept to sit on this committee, because it is a difficult committee, and who are accepting to travel for the four weeks and work the other five weeks in Ottawa. I just want to mention that.

We will now have a three-minute round. Mr. Pallister.

À (1005)

Mr. Brian Pallister: We've had various estimates of the cost of implementing this. They're talking of up to half a billion dollars. From the submissions we've heard, we know that the priorities of aboriginal Canadians are, as you have accurately stated, housing, water quality, and issues such as those. Those can't be addressed by this money, which will be dedicated to putting in place a regime that very few aboriginal leaders and community members support. I think that's a tragedy.

One of the priorities that we see as important is the transitional support. As you said earlier, we're sitting right now in the largest reserve in the country here in Winnipeg. Yet the transitional programs are being cut. I'm concerned that the money that's going to go to this is coming out of other kinds of supports. There are the headstart programs and the early childhood development programs, which you know are being cut right now in Winnipeg and Portage la Prairie as well as other communities across the country. Would you like to take the opportunity to comment on how important those programs are for the people of our province and our country?

Grand Chief Margaret Swan: Yes, we need those resources as part of our healing, like Head Start, working with our children, taking them along the proper path, working with our youth. A youth initiative that was spearheaded by the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs right here in Winnipeg and has been very positive for our youth has also been cut. The resources are very much needed in those areas. I don't understand why the cuts are being made. I think the government has to revisit its priorities.

Just to comment a little, Mr. Bonin, on what you stated earlier, when I sit at this table and see members of the Liberal Party, members of government, I'm not sure what some of you have done to try to ensure our voices are heard at your level. Anita, I spoke to you on several occasions about this initiative. I have talked to people like Paul Martin, and I can't even think which others from within the Liberal Party. Obviously within the party, within cabinet, they support themselves or each other in this process; otherwise it would not be moving forward.

So to me that's clear. When I look at the Liberal Party members in this room, they're part of this process and they're helping it along, rather than really sincerely listening to us and our views.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Martin is next for three minutes.

Mr. Pat Martin: Building on that comment, with what little time we have, I can tell you without even mentioning party names--so I don't get interrupted by the chair again--there was a systematic misinformation campaign that went on for a full two years leading up to the introduction of this bill. Day after day, members would stand up in the House of Commons and cite isolated incidents of financial mismanagement on this reserve, or one disgruntled person who lost an election on that reserve, and try to thread them together into a common theme that every reserve was so corrupt and inept that we had to do something. It was a national emergency. We had to do something to reign in these wildly outlandish leaders in every community.

The government bought into it. I've heard allegations to that effect from government-side members as well. It started on the opposition side. The government side bought into it and is using it as a justification to achieve secondary objectives, such as diminishing traditional aboriginal inherent and treaty rights.

I'd ask you to comment on that.

Grand Chief Margaret Swan: I'm just going to say we all know who the alligator is, but that's okay. It seems the federal government has taken it upon itself to really target first nations leadership. In the papers a few weeks ago Minister Nault clearly identified, I believe, 17 chiefs in Canada out of 633 that made the same amount of money as our Prime Minister, Jean Chrétien. Quite frankly, I think Jean Chrétien should make half of what those guys make. That would be fair.

Again, you're putting us under a big microscope. That's okay; you're making us stronger.

À (1010)

Mr. Pat Martin: I seem to have woken a sleeping giant here. Given some of the presentations across this country, you're right. The basic unfairness of all of this has mobilized a generation, just like the 1969 white paper mobilized a whole generation of militancy and activism and spawned a generation of some of the leaders we see in business today. I hope it does have the same effect.

Would you agree that if this is supposed to be about self-government, the imposition of a template of codes is the very opposite of self-governance? It undermines the very idea of self-governance to impose these codes, when surely the very definition of self-governance is developing the codes of governance by which any free society operates.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Dromisky.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, I would like to say that I'm really very disturbed by how unhappy and how angry you are as a grand chief in your relationship with the Minister of Indian Affairs.

I listened very carefully to your presentation and there was very little said about Bill C-7, but there was a certain very strong message about your uneasiness, and how uncomfortable you were and disturbed you were in your relationship with the Minister of Indian Affairs. It's too bad because when that happens it becomes a major obstacle in any kind of effort to make progress of any positive nature. There is no doubt about that.

As a newcomer to this committee, I've been listening to all the chiefs we heard from last week and this week, and a strange phenomenon is emerging more and more and more. I am a very astute person when it comes to studying human behaviour. That's been my job all my life. And I have discovered that so many of the chiefs don't really comprehend or have an in-depth understanding of the bill.

Here is a bill that proclaims to improve the quality of life of band members, and it says that quality of life could be improved by the people involved within the band. It's for their good. But suddenly there is a united effort by the leaders of all of these people to just ignore completely that whole process, ignore the bill, don't pay any attention to it, not even read it, proclaim that you're against it. That's strange. That's really unnatural for 633 chiefs to be taking that kind of position. That is not a natural phenomenon.

Who has told everybody not to abide by it, not to take part, not to pay any attention, not to read it? I don't understand. Has that gone on? You, as a grand chief, have you told all the chiefs within your jurisdiction, don't pay any attention to it?

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Dromisky.

Chief, we have three minutes left, so we will invite you to respond to this question, which is one minute. The other two minutes are yours for closing remarks.

Grand Chief Margaret Swan: I'll be very quick.

First of all, my intelligence is a little bit insulted. I am going to say to you, if you consider yourself an astute person, would you not say I have every right to be angry at a minister who is arrogant, who comes in and says, we are going to do this?

Secondly, do you think I control the chiefs I work with? We have really good discussions. We study documents before we go ahead and make decisions. We're not way back in the 1800s where in some possible ways you thought you could trick us by signing treaties. In reality these treaties say as long as the sun shines, the river flows, and the grass grows, and my ancestors were in fact very smart in putting those clauses in there.

So, yes, we studied this document, and that's why we didn't agree with it. For us, that's clear. I have every right to be angry, and I will deal with my anger in a constructive way. I don't appreciate any government continuing to oppress my people, and that makes me angry. I will do what I can to stand up to any government that does that, but I will do it in a good way.

À (1015)

The Chair: Please, that's the time. You have two minutes left for closing remarks.

Grand Chief Margaret Swan: In closing, I would like to say for us the bottom line is treaty implementation. Deal with us in a fair and just way with respect to our land and resources based on our inherent and treaty rights as descendants of the original landowners.

You have the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples report, the Penner report. Look at those documents and seriously consider the recommendations, because they say the same thing I'm saying.

Work with us in a fair and just way, not like we're your children and you can tell us what to do and keep up the attitude of “We're here to continue to civilize you after we discovered you”. That's bullshit. Excuse my language, but that's no longer acceptable.

As far as Bill C-7 goes, we're not going to accept it even if there are amendments made. To us, it's still not acceptable. Also, don't forget, no longer are we going to be divided and conquered. We work very closely together across this country right from one end to the next. That's the reality. We may have differences of opinion sometimes with B.C. because they don't have treaties, but that does not mean we don't support each other. Thanks to you guys we now have cellphones, the Internet, e-mail, faxes, and all that kind of stuff so we're able to communicate more effectively as leaders.

So if you go ahead and recommend that this bill pass, more than likely, 100% sure, you're going to have some civil disobedience across the country. You will see some of that here today in the biggest reserve in Canada.

I thank you very much for giving me this time and opportunity. Please make the right decision. I am sure the Creator will guide you there if you will listen.

Meegwetch.

The Chair: Thank you very much. We thank you very much for an excellent presentation. We know that you are living your mission and that you are doing what you think is right. I'm not disputing any of the comments you have made. We thank you very much for your contribution. It will be very useful to the committee.

Thank you.

I now invite, from the Interlake Reserves Tribal Council Incorporated, the executive director, Joe Anderson.

I understand Mr. Anderson will be accompanied by Chief Garnet Woodhouse, Chief Jerry Marsden, and Chief Florence McLean. Is that correct?

Mr. Joe Anderson (Executive Director, Interlake Reserves Tribal Council Inc.): That's correct. The two chiefs have not arrived yet.

The Chair: I see.

Mr. Joe Anderson: However, Chief Woodhouse is in the building.

The Chair: Thank you. We have 45 minutes together. We invite you to make your presentation and hopefully allow time for questions.

Mr. Joe Anderson: I understand the presentation is limited to five minutes and the rest is a question period for the committee. Is that correct?

À (1020)

The Chair: Everyone has been asked to make a five-minute presentation. If you do it in five minutes you will be the first in four weeks to do it. I choose as chair not to interrupt if you go beyond. We consider this your time.

Mr. Joe Anderson: Thank you.

On behalf of the chiefs I have met during my visit on the governance, our position is that we are willing to sit down to possibly go more deeply into this governance thing. For this presentation we were planning on doing today, there is not enough time to convene a proper meeting, so we are requesting someone from the department, or the government, to meet directly with us and we can start not on negotiations but on having more understanding of the act.

The Chair: Does this conclude your presentation, sir?

Mr. Joe Anderson: That is our request to the committee.

The Chair: You are requesting it from the wrong people. We have no control over the department. We are accountable to the House of Commons, to the Speaker of the House. We cannot direct the department to meet with you.

So do you wish us to proceed to question period now?

Mr. Joe Anderson: Yes.

The Chair: Thank you.

We'll have a first round of five minutes. Who will be going? Mr. Elley or Mr. Vellacott?

Mr. Reed Elley: I'm finding myself in a bit of a quandary as to what to ask you because we don't have a written submission or you aren't prepared to make a verbal one.

The Chair: I can tell you that there is no obligation to use the 45 minutes. If we finish early, we get more spontaneous presentations.

Mr. Reed Elley: This has been through the so-called consultation process, it's been before the House, and we have been travelling with this committee for a few weeks now.

Have you had any consultations with your own people on Bill C-7 or gotten any feedback from them on this?

Mr. Joe Anderson: The meetings we had with our membership were brief.

Mr. Reed Elley: So you really haven't had any formal meetings.

Mr. Joe Anderson: No, we've had no formal meetings on the act.

The Chair: Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr. Anderson.

As executive director, I think it's revealing, if you will, that you would come to the committee and say that you really haven't had an opportunity to form an opinion on this bill. I just recently went to Poplar River First Nation and met with the people there and to the Pauingassi First Nation and met people there. They said the same thing. I asked, what are your views on the First Nations Governance Act? They said, we don't know anything about it.

So I pulled out a copy of it and put it on the desk and they said, no, we've read it and we've seen it; we just don't understand it, and we've had no opportunity to really learn a lot about it.

So I think it speaks volumes, the fact that somebody would come here and say that we haven't had an opportunity to really deal with these comprehensive, sweeping changes. This is the first comprehensive review and change to the Indian Act in 50 years, and it's being rammed through and will probably be law by June, and a lot of the people in your communities will still have no idea what's been done to them because it's too fast. No resources were made available. No money was made available to any community to do an analysis of the act.

When the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples went around, people would apply for and be given money to develop a position paper on that important review. Nothing happened like that with the First Nations Governance Act. I would like to ask some detailed questions about specific clauses, but I think the point has been made that this is being forced through without the participation, or even understanding, of the very people whose lives it will have a profound effect upon.

If you'd like to comment, I've probably got a few minutes left.

Mr. Joe Anderson: I've been joined by Chief Woodhouse and Chief Joe Marsden. Both are members of the Interlake Reserves Tribal Council. That's what I stated in my opening statements. We would like to have more time to look into this, more consultation with other people, and we'd be looking for resources to do that.

That's our position.

À (1025)

The Chair: Mr. Hubbard.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Thanks, Mr. Chair, and good morning.

I know our chair has outlined that we don't represent the department but rather the House of Commons, and with that of course we report back to the Speaker. Mr. Chair, we might mention that today doesn't conclude this. This is not your last opportunity to take and make a presentation to our committee.

Mr. Chair, we would entertain, I believe, written submissions until a certain period of time.

The Chair: Yes, that's understood.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Next week we are in Atlantic Canada, and with that, Chief Anderson, I think the opportunity might be out there. It's my understanding that certain communications were made, but probably they weren't explained or it didn't happen as best it could have. But, Mr. Chair, we can only suggest.... I'm sure the department is following what's happening here with our committee.

If it were possible, Chief, in a matter of a few sessions or another week or two weeks, could you, as a group...I believe you represent seven first nations?

Mr. Joe Anderson: Yes, we would like to come back to the table and do a written submission.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: I think it might be to everyone's advantage. I'm not sure about coming back to the table, but certainly you could send a written submission to our committee in Ottawa, to our clerk, and we certainly would want to take your advice and your suggestions under advisement.

Mr. Chair, I know I'm probably saying something that's not our jurisdiction, but I'm sure the department's watching and would be willing to--

The Chair: We have established the deadline of February 14 for written submissions, but as you are registered as a presenter, we will accept your written presentation at any time.

Are there any more questions from the members?

Did you wish to make closing remarks? You have time if you wish to make closing remarks.

Mr. Joe Anderson: Thank you.

The Chair: Yes, Chief Woodhouse.

Chief Garnet Woodhouse (Interlake Reserves Tribal Council Inc.): Thank you for giving me a few moments of your time--two minutes.

I'm sorry I didn't come to the table when he started. Anyway, I am excited about this governance act that has surfaced in our area. I would like to get involved. I will tell you some of my background.

My great-great-grandfather was the one who signed for the Treaty 2 area. He was involved. So I would like to protect my treaties. I don't want this to dissolve any treaties, but if there are some amendments to be made to update not the treaty but the Indian Act itself, then we can leave it at that and move on to the next area that needs to be looked at. The willingness is there from the tribal council to review it, but we have to be given a chance.

There should be presentations done by the government in each community on what it's all about. My people today are being kept in the dark and they are just hearing the governance act. That's how far they went.

I think we need to work together on this and come to an understanding, rather than just dealing with certain people. I think my people need to hear this right from the government level. Today there were comments given to this committee regarding housing, for example. In every first nation in Canada we are faced with that problem. Those are the things that should be addressed.

So I think we need to do a lot of paperwork; a lot of meetings need to take place to make it happen. But in doing that we need to come to the table and deal with the issues. It shouldn't be only a one-way street.

Thank you.

À (1030)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Are there any other comments? Yes, Chief Marsden.

Chief Jerry Marsden (Interlake Reserves Tribal Council Inc.): Good morning, committee. I want to make a short comment that I'm quite excited as well with the governance act. I'm sure if we work together things will happen. As Joe was mentioning, we will work with him to do a written presentation.

I thank you all.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

This completes this part of our presentations. Thank you.

We now invite, from Treaty One Nations, Jerry Fontaine of the Treaty One Protection and Implementation Office. Colleagues, this will be immediately followed by the Mennonite Central Committee of Canada, who have agreed to present before lunch. That means we will shorten our own lunch period.

Mr. Fontaine, we welcome you and we invite you to introduce your colleagues and to make a presentation. We are together for 45 minutes, and hopefully you will allow time for questions.

Mr. Jerry Fontaine (Treaty One Protection and Implementation Office, Treaty One First Nations): Bonjour.

[Witness speaks in his native language]

Before I begin, I'd like to take this opportunity to introduce the members of the presentation committee. With me are Chief Meeches from Long Plain First Nation, Joe Daniels from Sagkeeng, and Vice-Chief Ken Young from the Assembly of First Nations.

The bulk of the presentation will be made by Chief Meeches, Councillor Daniels, and Vice-Chief Young. I am here more to provide the introduction and to welcome you to the traditional territory of the Treaty One Nations.

We have with us as well four sacred medicines that have been with our peoples since the beginning of time. It is more as a token of a teaching. You've come into our traditional territory bearing no gifts. We in turn welcome you with the gifts of sweet grass, tobacco, sage, and cedar, the four very sacred gifts of our people that have been with us, as I said, since the beginning of time. I hope you will learn from this teaching in your travels to make certain you bring gifts of tobacco and what have you to the people who were here since the beginning of time.

With that I will pass it over to Chief Meeches and we'll begin.

Meegwetch.

Chief Denny Meeches (Long Plain First Nation, Treaty One First Nations): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I am from the Long Plain First Nation, a Treaty One territory that was signed in 1871, and a subsequent treaty was signed in 1876.

I have a statement of Treaty One nations. I want to present it to you, the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs.

I'll do an introduction.

The Anishnabek in Canada maintain that our sovereignty was never relinquished to legislative acts of the Canadian government nor by treaties. Prior to 1982 there have been numerous attempts to erode our inherent right to sovereignty, nationhood, and self-governance.

Since the beginning of time we have exercised our sovereignty. It should be understood that the federal government's concept of self-government differs fundamentally with our concept of self-government. We maintain that the act of allowing an Anishnabek nation the right to self-governance is patronizing. The federal government takes the position that it will delegate the act of governing to an Anishnabek nation. This is simply not true.

Canada continues down this genocidal path. We have seen Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau and his messenger, Jean Chrétien, attempt to implement the white paper in 1969. Trudeau's notion of a just society softened the collective rights of Anishnabek in favour of individual rights.

Bill C-7, the First Nations Governance Act, is the latest assault on self-determination. Self-determination is the life force of our people, and this life force must be protected at all costs. The self-determination of indigenous peoples, the Anishnabek nations, and the European immigrants to Turtle Island have always been at odds with the notion of discovery.

This notion of discovery has negated the rights of Anishnabek peoples to sovereignty and equality among the nations of the world. It took away the title to our land and it gave us the right only to sell. Interestingly, we can only sell it to the European nation that had discovered our land.

The official European attitude toward Anishnabek land was that this discovery gave Canada the exclusive right to extinguish the Anishnabek title of occupancy either by purchase or conflict. Anishnabek nations were never defeated in battle at any time in our history.

The rights of indigenous peoples throughout the world are often violated, with no redress. The reason is international law has attempted to recognize indigenous peoples as having rights of self-determination and nationhood.

The normal test of international law in recognizing sovereignty was established by article 1 of the Montevideo Convention, 1933. The four criteria are a permanent population, a defining territory, a government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other states. The Anishnabek in Canada clearly meet this test. Far too often domestic courts have misinterpreted and misapplied the principles of international law; therefore, they are not likely to recognize Anishnabek nationhood.

In any event, an international court that is non-biased and independent should decide this matter of nationhood. International covenants from the United Nations proclaim that all peoples have the right to self-determination. Anishnabek nations in Canada assert that we are peoples in the international covenants, while Canada has continued to describe Anishnabek peoples as a population, because populations do not possess a right of self-determination.

À (1035)

The Chair: Excuse me for interrupting, and I apologize for that. Could you slow down a little? We have interpreters who are trying to keep up to you.

Chief Denny Meeches: All right.

The lack of recognition is an extension of legal fiction to deny the existence of nationhood, the existence of a peoples, and the existence of self-determination. Although a nation may meet the requisite criteria for nationhood, it still requires the recognition by member states. Despite this lack of recognition, Anishnabek nations will continue to protect our inherent right to self-determination, self-governance, and sovereignty.

A declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples tabled by a United Nations working group was forwarded to the United Nations General Assembly. Article 3 of the declaration states:

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

On treaties, Manitoba became a province of Canada in 1870, despite the fact that Treaty One was not entered into until August 3, 1871. The question that must be asked is, if ownership of the land still belonged to Anishnabek, how could Canada legally create the province of Manitoba?

The Manitoba Act of 1870 is therefore in direct contravention of the Royal Proclamation of 1763.

Treaty One and other treaties were originally viewed as contracts. Therefore, each partner had to agree to the terms of the treaty to be valid. Canada, in any event, must be required under the impairments of the contracts or under the due process clause to protect the rights of Anishnabek.

Treaty nations uniformly considered the treaty process a nation-to-nation process that respected the sovereignty and nationhood of the Anishnabek. The Treaty One Nations never intended to surrender sovereignty, self-determination, or self-governance. We merely exercised our inherent right.

It must be clarified at this point that although the terms of its extinguishment and cession were written into the text of the treaties, our nations did not negotiate on this basis, nor did we agree to the use of this terminology. To reiterate, we agree to share the land and its resources.

Further, the issue of sovereignty was never relinquished because it was simply not on the bargaining table.

Chief Justice Lamer in R. v. Badger made the following determination regarding treaties:

The treaties, as written documents, recorded an agreement that had already been reached orally and they did not always record the full extent of the oral agreement. ... The treaties were drafted in English by representatives of the Canadian government who, it should be assumed, were familiar with common law doctrines. Yet, the treaties were not translated in written form into the languages...of the various Indian nations who were signatories. Even if they had been, it is unlikely that the Indians, who had a history of communicating only orally, would have understood them any differently.

As a result, it is well settled that the words in the treaty must not be interpreted in the strict technical sense or subject to rigid, modern rules of construction. Rather, they must be interpreted in the sense that they would naturally have been understood by the Indians at the time of signing.

The Supreme Court in R. v. Sundown reiterated Justice Lamer's determinations in the Badger case. It said that:

In many if not most treaty negotiations, members of the First Nations could not read or write English and relied completely on the oral promises made by the Canadian negotiators. There is a sound historical basis for interpreting treaties in the manner summarized in Badger. Anything else would amount to be a denial of fair dealing and justice between the parties.

Treaty One is unique in that it confirms the ability of the Anishnabek to enter into international covenants as self-determining and sovereign nations. Our elders have taught us that sovereignty and self-determination were never surrendered. We know full well that our inherent right to be self-governing was impaired by government interference. We must reiterate that Treaty One Nations never acquiesced to these legislative intrusions. Anishnabek of Treaty One unequivocally state that our inherent right to self-determination was never surrendered and that we will continue to exercise the rights of self-determination and self-governance.

Further, the Treaty One nations will reclaim powers, jurisdiction, and assume newer ones based on sovereign and inherent rights. These rights will be further nurtured by the will of our people and the international covenants that affirm these rights under international law. We know full well that the Canadian domestic law will never affirm nor recognize those rights.

Fundamentally, the First Nations Governance Act actually seeks to erode our inherent rights to sovereignty, self-determination, and self-governance.

The members of the standing committee are asked to reflect on the invasive and destructive nature of the First Nations Governance Act. Your task has certainly not be an easy one as Canada continues down this path of quiet genocide.

We see that you have one choice to make. You can be willing participants to a process that began in 1920 with Duncan Campbell Scott proclaiming: “I want to get rid of the Indian problem.... Our object is to continue until there is not a single Indian who has not been absorbed....” Or you can honour your trust-like responsibility to ensure that the Anishnabek peoples' right to self-determination, self-governance, and sovereignty are respected. Until Canada begins to build a moral record in its dealings with the Anishnabek nations, it should not try to fool the rest of the world about its intentions and good graces.

Rather than question the Anishnabek about the First Nations Governance Act and other matters it has no business asking about, the question Canada must ask itself is, how does Canada begin this reconciliation process?

It can begin, one, by initiating definite commitments to fulfill its treaty obligations, which would introduce some morality into Canadian foreign policy.

Two, it can pass legislation that, unlike the FNGA, acknowledges the rights of the Anishnabek as contained in the treaties. This would include the return to traditional systems of governance based on nationhood. For example, the Three Fires Confederacy would reunite the Anishnabek, the Potawotomi, and the Odawa nations in a governance vehicle that has been with us since the beginning of time. Our task is not to create something entirely different and new; rather it is to take from the past what has worked and to give it modern-day application.

Three, it can establish a treaty commission based on the numbered pre-Confederation and modern-day treaties. The treaty commission would facilitate discussions and negotiations, monitor progress in the Anishnabek-federal-provincial relations, and adjudicate disputes and jurisdiction. The treaty commission would acknowledge the trust and fiduciary obligation of the federal government to ensure that the best interests of the Anishnabek are respected.

The Waitangi Tribunal is one written model, established by the Waitangi Treaty Act of 1975 to deal with treaty matters. By establishing a tribunal parliament, it provided a legal process by which Maori treaty claims could be investigated. It contributes to the resolution of treaty claims and provides for reconciliation under a permanent commission of inquiry.

The treaty commission would represent the rights of the Anishnabek and our right to freedom and equality.

Four, Treaty One nations advocate a concept of treaty governance that would resolve jurisdictional issues, including articulation of powers and authorities; reflect inherent sovereign rights; and provide protection to treaties under section 35 to comply with the supreme law of the land, with the result that federal-provincial laws in conflict with the terms of the treaty would be of no force and effect, pursuant to section 52.

We would like to table alternative methods for Anishnabek participation in determining our future, rather than asking people like you to determine the lives of future generations. Both the Prime Minister and the minister have indicated that the First Nations Governance Act is not carved in stone. I am open to suggestions as to how it might be improved.

Treaty One nations believe that the following would allow our people to participate meaningfully in the nation-building process, which the federal government states it wants to initiate with the First Nations Governance Act. Treaty One nations believe that resolution of the Anishnabek question should be a national priority. Lives are being ruined and lost because of bad federal government decisions. The list is too numerous to mention. Never before have so few been so wrong with such devastating effect for so many.

Treaty One nations advocate the following.

One, the return to the traditional systems of governance based on nations. Examples of this are the Three Fires Confederacy, the Six Nations Confederacy, the Blackfoot Confederacy, and the Mic'maq Confederacy.

Two, Anishnabek government should be constitutionally entrenched. Upon achieving autonomy, this government would have sovereignty and be constitutionally equal to the federal and provincial levels of government.

Three, funding for this constitutionally entrenched government should be similar to the federal-provincial formula for transfer payments. Therefore, certain levels of funding and authority to allocate these dollars would be the responsibility of the Anishnabek government. Again, there is no need for a constitutional debate, as this can be done under subsections 91(24) and 35(1)—much to the chagrin of the minister.

Four, regarding the costs of a treaty commission, it should be common knowledge that treaties predate legislation such as the Indian Act, as a means of legally arranging relations between the government and the Anishnabek Nation. Therefore, treaties could be seen as analogous to legislation.

In closing, the fundamental fact underlying the charter for self-determination is the concept of nationhood. A nation may choose to join with other nations in different structures, or it may choose to act independently and exercise political authority. The nation, however, is sovereign in determining its future.

So to all my relations, for as long as the sun shines, the rivers flow, and the grass grows, Meegwetch.

À (1045)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Chief Fontaine, do some other members of your delegation have presentations to make?

Mr. Jerry Fontaine: Councillor Joe Daniels and Vice-Chief Young. We also have a council member from Sandy Lake First Nation who would like to read a prepared statement.

The Chair: If you invite them to the table, they will be welcome.

Can we proceed with Mr. Daniels' comments, and maybe move on?

Mr. Joseph Daniels (Sogkeeng First Nations): [Witness speaks in his native language]

À (1050)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Now Vice-Chief Young.

Mr. Kenneth Young (Manitoba Regional Chief, Assembly of First Nations): [Witness speaks in his native language]

I just want to thank you all for being here to listen to the presentations of very concerned first nations leaders. I will be very brief.

I had the opportunity to extensively look at the legislation that we're all here to discuss. I have some grave concerns.

I wrote to the minister a series of letters, which I will provide to the committee before you leave here--letters dated May 3 and August 21. He responded to my letters on January 8 of this year. I responded to his response on January 27, and he has responded to my letter just a couple of days ago. I will provide these letters to the committee for its consideration.

In regard to the legislation that we are currently discussing, I have the following concerns. I outlined them in a letter I wrote to the minister. I will read them out.

The FNGA entrenches the notion that first nations government authority is delegated from the Government of Canada and infringes directly on the recognition of the first nations government authority as guaranteed in section 35 of the Constitution Act 1982.

Your proposed legislation broadens your authority to intervene in financial affairs of first nations and gives you absolute control of all first nations fiscal initiatives, including those that are independent of departmental funding.

The act will give you the final authority to accept or reject band laws without any respect for first nations political culture and will not contribute to first nations capacity. It lacks recognition of the inherent right to self-government.

The default regime codes as set out in the FNGA will be imposed on all first nations regardless of size, circumstance, economic condition, or need. This one-size-fits-all and the blank approach will ensure all first nations will be subject to the same default regime.

The provisions relating to ratification are totally unconscionable. Only 25% of our first nations population can determine the political future of a first nation. In other words, if a first nation has a population of 1,000, 250 plus one of that population can decide the will of 1,000 people. What if non-residents make that decision for resident populations? This is hardly a reasonable or responsible way of gaining consent for infringing on constitutional first nations rights.

The provisions relating to legal capacity represent a relegation of the inherent right to self-government to a municipal form of government. What becomes of the treaties that were signed by first nations and not “natural persons”? The treaties were signed on a nation-to-nation basis and were not signed by what your proposed legislation identifies as “natural persons”.

These nation-to-nation agreements, by virtue of section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, cannot be relegated or controlled by a municipal corporate entity and without the consent of first nations people.

I believe that what is at stake here, if this legislation proceeds along the way it is expected, is that the courts will be asked to give meaning to the words that are contained in the legislation. Minister Nault, myself, any of you, the lawyers who represent the Department of Justice, and government have no say in relation to what those words that are contained in this proposed bill will mean.

That is what we're looking at here as a stark reality for the future if this legislation proceeds and is passed by government.

À (1055)

I think I've given notice in my letters to Bob Nault that we will take legal action against the government if this legislation is in fact passed through the House of Commons and becomes law.

I think the anger you feel and have heard here this morning and that you will hear across the country is real. The protection of our rights is uppermost in our minds. The treaties have to be implemented. The rights that are entrenched in the Constitution have to be given meaning. They have to be defined. They have to be implemented.

This process that Bob Nault has started is not the right one. We have to structure one that will include everybody. Government, other levels of government, the people of Canada, and our people in particular must have a say in terms of defining the rights and the implementation of those rights. Governments created on policy will not work. You've heard Grand Chief Swan mention the treaties--implementation of those treaties--and access to the wealth of this country in a fair way.

Governments that are not properly financed will not work. We will merely be administering poverty, and we've done that for far too long. We've got to get away from that.

You people here have the capacity and the authority to tell government that we want to do things differently with first nations people, and it has to come from you. It has to come from your heart. I'm speaking from my heart today. I want you to listen. I want you to listen to our people, not only here but right across the country.

Those are my honest comments. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I understand that Mr. Beaulieu has a statement to read. Please proceed.

Mr. Raymond Beaulieu (Councilor, Sandy Bay, Manitoba, Treaty One First Nations): I would like to welcome the House of Commons standing committee, committee members, fellow chiefs, ladies and gentlemen.

My traditional territory is known as Treaty 1 Tootinaowaziibeeng First Nation, which has lived on this traditional territory, the south shore of Lake Manitoba, for two centuries and more. Today we have over 4,700 members. Nearly 3,100 members live on reserve.

In 1871 Treaty 1 was entered into with the imperial Crown, and amendments were made in the treaty five years later. At the signing of Treaty 1 our people, our first nations, informed the commissioner that Nawahchekahdahkekahbo was our chief and Baptiste Spence and Wahsahauk were councillors.

For many years, both before and after treaty, we exercised our inherent and treaty rights to determine our own leaders under band custom. Eventually the government forced the Indian Act upon us. In the early 1970s the people took over our government again. The Sandy Lake Band customary election regulations are drawn up and endorsed by our members.

The Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs acknowledged our band customary election regulations by obtaining an order in council in 1974, removing our elections from the operation of the Indian Act. That means our elections are outside the authority of the Minister of Indian Affairs. Any complaint can be taken to the people, not the minister. The people retain full authority over our band elections. The people are free to change the election regulations whenever they wish.

Nonetheless, after our last election on September 23, 2002, someone made a complaint to the minister. The minister should have said take your complaint to the people; they have the power to deal with it. Instead the minister said to the people who were complaining about the band customary elections, don't worry, I'll fix it.

On December 13, 2002, the minister told us--not the regional office, but Ottawa--we would have to amend our band customary election regulations, that we would have to do it by February 14, 2003. He had no power to do that but he did. We told him okay. We were in the process of making amendments anyway and we would take these to the people to make our band customary election regulations better.

Chief and council met at the regional office back on December 23, 2002, and we were told to develop a work plan for the revision of our band's customary election regulations. On January 3, 2003, as chief of Sandy Lake Ojibway First Nation, I sent our work plan budget that detailed to the minister our budget and timeframes to revise our band's customary election regulations. That would take us to March 31, 2003.

On January 7, 2003, some of my staff met with Martin Egan, land reserves and trusts, to provide him with our signed work plan and budget. At this time he provided us with a positive indication that the work plan and the budget were doable.

On January 10, 2003, Sandy Lake First Nation received a letter from regional office stating that our January 3, 2003, work plan and budget were frozen, and the contribution agreement could be entered into between Sandy Lake Ojibway First Nation and Indian and Northern Affairs Canada to formalize a process for revising our band's customary election regulations.

We began to work immediately by holding meetings with the band members to obtain their views about the elections. We reported our problems to Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. We sent a letter to the minister on February 25, 2002, which he responded to in a letter on December 13, 2002, which was received in our office on December 20, 2002.

The response from the minister was a letter dated February 25 saying he had taken over the financial affairs of Sandy Lake Ojibway First Nation.

Á (1100)

The letter said he was taking away our rights to govern ourselves. The letter from the minister said he was calling an election under the Indian Act, all in the name of democracy. There were no reasons given. There was no right of appeal. We did the only thing we could do and filed an action in Federal Court.

I want to read that history of Bill C-7. We want to be clear that we consider Bill C-7 as beyond repair. It cannot be fixed by amendments to a clause here and there. Bill C-7 directly infringes on our right to self-government. It is an infringement on our treaty, in which we obtained the right to govern ourselves and select our leaders. Bill C-7 is a clear signal of the minister's ongoing intention to remain in firm control of first nations affairs.

Nonetheless, because of our recent experience we want to comment on part of Bill C-7. First, we want to point out that Bill C-7 increases the power of the minister to take total control of a first nation's affairs, going beyond even what he has done with my first nation.

This power is given to the minister in subclause 10(3). All that is required is for the minister to feel that our financial health has deteriorated; all he has to do is form that opinion. Bill C-7 goes beyond the Indian Act in giving the minister power to abuse our democracy and take over our affairs without due process.

At the present time the minister intervenes in our finances by imposing a third-party manager who has total dictatorial control, power to do as he wishes without any accountability to anyone. The minister claims he has the right to do so because of the agreements we have entered into for the administration of federal money.

Bill C-7 will provide statutory authority for the minister to move in and take over our reserve. The minister just sits in Ottawa and makes an assessment of a first nation's finances any time he wishes. He no longer needs to get an order in council. His signature on a letter is all he needs. Just before the first nation finds out, the minister has already seized the first nation's bank accounts.

Bill C-7 does not, however, provide any protection for first nations. The minister is not obliged to state the conditions to be met that would cause him to remove his third-party manager. He can keep the manager in place as long as he wishes. The minister is not obliged to give notice, state reasons, follow any due process, or give any accounting for his agent's conduct with our assets and operations.

The minister's decision is not subject to appeal. The minister is not accountable to anyone for his actions. A first nation could go to Federal Court for a judicial review, but that is very difficult when a first nation's account has been taken over by the minister and there is no money for legal fees.

It is almost impossible to get an injunction against the minister for immediate relief, and justice department lawyers would make every possible move to delay the court's decision for a year or more.

Bill C-7 is a bill that is supposed to teach us about a higher standard of democracy. That's the situation Bill C-7 sets up for financial affairs. The same increase in the minister's authority is applied to his ability to set aside elections. According to subclause 32(1), there will be regulations governing election appeals. According to subclause 32(2), the regulations must provide that the appeal be heard by the minister.

No one knows what these regulations will say, and if our experience with consultation on Bill C-7 itself is repeated in consultation on the regulations, the minister might as well just impose them rather than engage in another sham consultation process.

These unknown regulations have the power of law. The regulations will be written by the minister and submitted to cabinet for approval. They are not subject to approval by Parliament.

Á (1105)

Given the arrogant disdain the minister has shown for democracy, the potential for the regulations to have.... Again, there is no protection for first nations.

There is no requirement that the minister follow due process, that he consult about the problem, that he provide notice, that he impose the least restrictive option appropriate to the circumstance, or that he provide a mechanism for appeal.

This is another violation of our treaty and inherent rights. Where did Canada ever obtain this colonial power? The government admits Sandy Bay First Nation has the inherent right to self-government. We can exercise that right today. We do not need the government's permission. We do not need the government's agreement. We have the right now.

We ask for an explanation about how Parliament can empower the minister to just sit in Ottawa and by the stroke of a pen take over our government and by the stroke of a pen make a regime change in my community, all under the guise of giving democracy to the people of Sandy Bay Ojibway First Nation.

We ask that you totally reject Bill C-7. Those are my words to this committee.

Meegwetch. Thank you.

Á (1110)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We have eight minutes left, and I understand Councillor Paul Chief wishes to make a presentation. Please proceed.

Mr. Paul Chief (Councillor, Brokenhead Ojibway Nation, Treaty One First Nations): Good morning, and thank you.

My Christian name is Paul Chief. My traditional name is Running Wolf Man. I'd just like to give my own reflections, and I'd like to give you a brief history so you can understand where I'm coming from.

As I was growing up, there were big discussions in Manitoba on dismantling INAC and first nations taking on their own governance. We have to reflect back to the 1930s, when the Natural Resources Transfer Act was committed and made possible in Canada and the province was given the authority for the natural resources in the surrounding areas.

This was basically the demise of the first nations. It confined us within our tiny little postage-stamp reserves within Manitoba, where the municipalities now have jurisdiction over us and our traditional lands. Our land use studies have proven our sovereignty over these lands, while Canada has to prove its sovereignty over the Arctic through its army. We have proven it with our land use studies, that we have not lost touch with our land. Our neighbouring communities overlap each other and we share this resource, but we have no way into it.

And it makes me think, what is the problem here? In the early eighties we were talking about dismantling the Indian Act. Now we have more paper to shuffle through the government so we can receive our dollars. They call it accountability but they don't bother reading it.

Why are we going over these hurdles? And they talk to us about how we are putting our governments in the hole. What about the surrounding municipalities? St. Clements is an excellent example because we are surrounded by them. Their government is in worse shape than ours, yet they are bailed out by the government, provincially and federally.

Is there a helping hand to the first nations? No, there is not. We are scrutinized. We are put up front and centre in the news media on a day-to-day basis, with no mention of how our surrounding neighbours are running their governments.

The other thing is Treaty 1. You are within Treaty 1 territory right now. Two-thirds of Manitoba's population is in Treaty 1, and we have no recognition of it whatsoever. We have no tax exemption. Everything we get and buy has to be brought to our reserve, yet we are within our traditional area, our treaty zone.

If you take a look worldwide, they know what's going on. What I mean is, the world knows what's going on. An example is when Chrétien went to China to talk about peace and so forth. What was the president's response from China? It was, what about the red man?

I hate that our own political leaders, first nations leaders, didn't capitalize on this. If the rest of the world knows, why are we trying to sweep it under the carpet?

If we can address these things that date back to 1930, I think we can move on. We can be part of the solution and not part of the problem. We are strong-willed people, but with these conditions that are put on us, they're breaking it every day.

I am an example of what's going on. I cannot speak my language because I was too close to the urban areas, and my elders, my mother in particular, didn't want me speaking Indian to be getting whipped, beaten, or hurt over it. I hate myself for it because I lost contact with my culture. I have a beautiful language. Why can't I keep it? Because the society of the day did not want it.

I still live with that, racism within my own traditional territory. I go into towns and so forth and I feel outcast because I'm from a first nation. They put up fences, bridges, and so forth, but they haven't paid for it yet to my mind. We were willing to share. When is our portion due, and when will we receive it?

Take a close look at those things and you'll understand where the first nations are coming from.

Meegwetch. Thank you.

Á (1115)

The Chair: Thank you very much. There are four minutes left. We don't have time for a round of questions, but the time is yours for closing remarks.

Chief Denny Meeches: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just for closing remarks, I think the legislation we need to enact is legislation concerning education and learning awareness, maybe in the provincial curricula where we talk about treaties—Treaty 1. Nobody around this table understands what Treaty 1 is really all about, other than the first nations themselves, I believe. Nobody's taught why you came to be here and how the treaties were signed—the adhesions to the treaties. We need to look at that.

We also have to look at how the Indian Act, since it was introduced in 1876 and in subsequent amendments, was racist. In its purest form it is racist, because it denied culture, it denied sun dances, powwows, social gatherings. We have to look at the residential school—how it was introduced through government policy and legislation and how it affected our people. We have to look at the child care situation, as they refer to the “sixties scoop”.

We have to look at how that government policy affected our first nations people. Nobody seems to have learned the history lesson that's been well-documented, that is there for all the world to see, and we're following the same path with this new legislation. Without any input or development from the first nations—the treaty people—we're going down the same path, where we are just walking blindly in a storm and have no way out.

Yet the answer is right in front of you; we're sitting here in front of you. This is the answer. We need to be directly involved in development of the laws that are going to impact our people. We can't continue to live based on laws that are being developed by people who don't understand our history, who have never learned it in schools as they're growing up, or have never learned it in their adult life.

That's the real problem. It's a problem of disassociation, of not wanting to—either intentionally or just by the way the system is set up—learn the true history of why we're here.

He was right: in Treaty 1 there is no recognition of the Treaty 1 area. There's no interpretive centre. There's nothing that identifies the historical significance of Treaty 1 and how settlement came to southern Manitoba. There's nothing that identifies the adhesion to Treaty 1. There are no monuments to these things. There are no awareness centres.

These are things we have to look at. I think we're being misguided with the introduction of another piece of legislation that will only suppress and oppress our first nations people. Economically, financially, we're being choked to death here again.

These are the final statements I want to make. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Fontaine.

Mr. Jerry Fontaine: On behalf of the Treaty 1 nations, we welcome you into our traditional territory, and we're going to be leaving the medicines with you. I'll pass them over to you upon our leaving.

As well, I'd like to say in closing that Bill C-7, the bill that's being proposed, is one that will have a definite negative impact upon our people. We talk, and we speak of treaties and respect, and the bill does none of that. It seeks only to take away what specific inherent rights we have had since the beginning of time.

Meegwetch.

The Chair: I thank you very much. Although we didn't have time for a question period, I am convinced you have addressed the issues that would have been presented to you as questions. The information was very helpful and will be helpful in our deliberation when we do clause-by-clause examination of the bill.

So we thank you very much. You have been very helpful.

I now invite to the table, from the Mennonite Central Committee Canada: Donovan Jacobs, member of the MCC Manitoba Aboriginal Neighbours Advisory Committee; and Rick Cornelsen, Aboriginal Neighbours program coordinator.

Welcome. We have 30 minutes together, and we want to thank you sincerely for accepting to present earlier. This will assist us in hearing more spontaneous presentations at the end of our day.

We invite you to make your presentation, hopefully allowing some time for questions. Please proceed.

Á (1120)

Mr. Rick Cornelsen (Aboriginal Neighbours Program Coordinator, Mennonite Central Committee Canada): Thank you very much. I want to say thank you, first of all, to the indigenous people who have graciously shared this land—this beautiful and abundant and gradually-warming-up land with us. And I want to thank you as a standing committee for inviting us to share this time with you.

Mennonite Central Committee Canada is the Christian service arm of Mennonite and Brethren in Christ churches in Canada. I am Rick Cornelsen and I am the national coordinator of our aboriginal neighbours program, which dates back to 1974. It includes both on-the-ground community development work and public education and advocacy.

My colleague Donovan Jacobs advises us and works for a constituent denomination. We'll both speak fairly briefly, I think, and then we'll welcome your comments and questions.

A key theme of our written submission, which you have received, is that process matters. We are not referring, however, only to the dubious quality of the consultation that preceded this legislation. We are concerned even more with the structural assumptions undergirding Bill C-7. This is also what we mean when we say “process matters”.

Bill C-7 is highly prescriptive and intrusive. It comes at indigenous nations from what many see as an outside government, and it builds upon the very legislation that has been used to suppress their traditional governance institutions.

We feel there is an inherent contradiction in this process, in the notion that the path to aboriginal self-government leads through such tinkering with the Indian Act. If there is one overriding concern that we have with the bill, it is that it may directly or indirectly erode the status of aboriginal peoples as distinct nations in a special relationship with Canada.

We take seriously those—and you have heard from some this morning—who see in this bill another step towards dispossession and assimilation, partly because of our 30 years of experience of up-close observation of federal-aboriginal relations. Partly also, as Mennonites—who are partly an ethnic, partly a religious group—we have experienced special privileges in some of the states or nations our people have moved to and lived in; that experience suggests it's possible to live in a community, in harmony, with those kinds of different or special relationships. We want to suggest it's possible to find legislation that also respects the very unique position of aboriginal people on this continent.

The 1996 report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples does call for legislation on governance-related matters, but it would be legislation of recognition. It would be explicit about the fact that “aboriginal nations do not require federal or provincial legislation to have the constitutional authority to function as governments”. It would set out jointly developed criteria for formal recognition of aboriginal nations as they themselves initiate and drive the process of constitution-building.

Can Bill C-7 be amended to become that kind of legislation? If all else fails, we would recommend a non-derogation clause and a bold reference to section 35 of the Constitution, which protects the aboriginal right to self-government. However, I want to make clear that it is not our first wish to see amendments to this bill. Our preference remains that together we find a genuine alternative to both Bill C-7 and the status quo. We think this is the most practical and realistic recommendation, because we don't believe C-7 will actually work.

You will note that we devoted significant space in our written presentation to examples of aboriginal nations that have already taken steps to rebuild themselves. This is very important to us. Just last night we had a meeting with a number of church people and other people from the general public at which two such groups presented their story. One of them you heard from as well yesterday in Thompson—the Pimicikamak Nation. Another one I think you will hear from tomorrow in Thunder Bay—the Grand Council of Treaty 3.

Á (1125)

We observed a hunger, first of all, in the non-aboriginal people to hear of alternatives and directions that aboriginal people themselves are taking, an initiative that they are taking, and a desire to get behind those. We also sensed a desire to tell that story, and I would encourage you to hear them if there's any chance to increase the time available for first nations like that who want to speak and tell you their story.

This is important to us. As a society, we can either undermine their initiatives or actively recognize and support them. Their existence and their persistence gives us yet another reason to abandon Bill C-7, because we know that we will not be stuck with only the status quo if we do that.

I'll stop my comments for the moment and ask my colleague, Donovan, to elaborate on a couple of these points.

Mr. Donovan Jacobs (Member, MCC Manitoba Aboriginal Neighbours Advisory Committee, Mennonite Central Committee Canada): [Witness speaks in his native language]...to all my brothers and sisters.

Not only am I part of the advisory committee of Aboriginal Neighbours for MCC Canada, I'm also a member of the Ojibway Walpole Island First Nation, Ontario.

It is clear that Bill C-7 does not clearly represent the aspirations of native peoples in this country. Back on January 27 of this year, Minister Nault stood before the standing committee and argued to some degree that Bill C-7 reflected the guidance and aspirations of first nations peoples. I submitted to you earlier, when we arrived at this committee, two letters, one from Minister Nault and one from National Chief Matthew Coon Come.

It is clear from this correspondence that Minister Nault misunderstood the AFN's hopes and aspirations concerning governance. You might remember that there seemed to be some incongruity between Minister Nault's version and the AFN's version of exactly what happened during the early discussions regarding governance.

To make it clear, these letters point out that the AFN came to the table expecting to talk about governance as a pathway to forming and shaping native aspirations of self-government at the nation-to-nation level. However, within these pages we also see that soon after coming to the realization that Minister Nault's view of governance was not nation to nation but was modelled after municipalities, the AFN made it clear that this was not what they had expected or wanted.

If Minister Nault is so eager to suggest that he clearly understands the aspirations of native peoples and uses this as the basis for Bill C-7, then I suggest to you that his understanding of what native people want is based more on selective hearing than what we have truly cited as the first priority of first nations peoples--governance as a nation, not just municipal powers.

For Minister Nault to utilize his association with native elders to lend credibility to Bill C-7, along with the other 10,000 or so he reports to have consulted with in the drafting of this legislation, is in my opinion merely an attempt by the Department of Indian Affairs to show how it has met certain criteria that protects native peoples from the infringement of their aboriginal and treaty rights, in particular the duty to consult, as drawn out in Sparrow and used in Badger.

If you look closely at the numbers who attended any one consultation held within the native communities, it becomes clear that most times participants from the community did not even outnumber the number of participants in the joint ministerial committee. Again, therefore, we say that Bill C-7 is falsely based on the notion that any meaningful consultation has taken place, which was a requirement--I say a requirement--of law.

So there's a threat to our rights further along the lines of legality. Bill C-7 will undoubtedly affect the legal relationship between native peoples and the rest of Canada. The First Nations Governance Act indirectly does this by shifting the current relationship we have so broadly and indefinably at this point, that as this new relationship unfolds it will lend itself to being redefined, most likely in the court system. Thus it can be anticipated that Bill C-7 will greatly change the current legal relationship that now stands. Again, this has implications when we consider that the Supreme Court has stipulated that if you attempt to infringe or alter aboriginal treaty rights, you have to show that such changes to the rights of aboriginal peoples have minimal impact on who we are as a people. And that again is drawn out in Sparrow.

When Minister Nault stood before you, he suggested that you ask your witnesses how this legislation will make first nations worse off than their current state under the Indian Act. As I've said before, Bill C-7 will shift the current relationship so broadly and indefinably that it will open a door for reinterpretation as to what native rights are in Canada. This could very well mean the extinguishment of treaty hunting rights and tax exemption status and the eradication of the fiduciary relationship and obligations the federal government has to native peoples.

Á (1130)

Most first nations see the bill as positioning on the part of the federal government to exterminate the native rights and relationships I've just described.

I would venture to add that this is exactly the desired outcome of the federal government, because if they can reinterpret the relationship they have with native peoples of this country, then subsequently all Supreme Court rulings that have been put in place to protect our rights will no longer apply simply because our standing within Canada will have changed. I also add that the exclusion of a non-derogation clause speaks to that effect.

To borrow one of Minister Nault's lines, imagine what it would be like for native peoples in Canada if Parliament were able to enact Bill C-7 into law. Based on the wide-sweeping, generalized shift in relationship, native residents could be faced with no longer being able to utilize their cultural and inherent right to hunt during traditional seasons and times of need. The levy of taxes on a generally impoverished and economically challenged people would only add to this sorrow. And the removal of the fiduciary relationship would force native peoples to conform or face being penalized by the withholding of funding from the federal government.

If you want to know how this will leave native peoples worse off than the situation we have now, at least while we are still in our correct relationship we have the means of protecting our interests and can move forward to real nation-to-nation dialogue on governance. This legislation, if left unchallenged, will inevitably lend itself to eroding these fundamental principles.

On the cost of Bill C-7, Minister Nault says he believes modern governments should practise the politics of empowerment. Admittedly, Bill C-7 speaks to some rather serious issues of redress, accountability, and transparency within our communities. In essence, it is about empowering band members to have a greater say in their local affairs, but it does so at a price, I say. The price is the erosion of any hope we have as native peoples in Canada regarding true self-government and self-determination. That is the price. That is the empowerment that Minister Nault is offering. It is shaped and directed toward only one outcome--the lessening of our rights as collective, distinct nations.

With regard to the trouble with the First Nations Governance Act, when we look at the current case law, Minister Nault states that based on the Constitution Act of 1867, Parliament has the power to pass laws relating to native peoples. To look at Bill C-7 as Parliament simply exercising its rights does not take into account the Constitution of 1982 and key Supreme Court rulings, how they currently influence the federal government's approach to drafting legislation and how Parliament can pass these into law.

For instance, the repatriation of the Constitution in 1982 affirms our rights as aboriginal peoples. Calder stated that the federal government has a fiduciary obligation to negotiate in good faith with native peoples. Sparrow stated that if native rights are to be infringed upon, such changes must have clear objectives, they must duly consult, and they must have minimal impact on our peoples. Delgamuukw established that native peoples have inherent land rights, and as a result it reinforces our position as peoples who have a right to govern their own affairs.

When you look at Bill C-7, what really comes through is that Minister Nault is reducing his responsibility to native peoples. When he first introduced this draft legislation, Minister Nault stated that Bill C-7 would lessen his authority in the day-to-day operations of our people. A close reading of Bill C-7 alongside the Indian Act reveals that the minister abdicates only his responsibility for drawing up codes and regulations. He abdicates that responsibility to the community, yet he still is able to dictate how our communities should be run, given the fact that he reserves the right to approve any laws made by our communities. You know, he gives us the power to make laws, but he has the final say on whether those laws will go through and be established.

Given Minister Nault's recent reprimand from the courts for not dealing justly and with due process with Pikangikum First Nation, I question his ability to rightly oversee the affairs of native peoples, for he has demonstrated an inability to work toward the best interests of our peoples.

The majority of first nations do not see Bill C-7 as an option by which to pursue self-government. Other options such as constitutional amendments and reform must be considered.

I thank you.

Á (1135)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We will have time for one round of questions. I would just like to clarify something for the record. When we refer to your presentation, can we associate it with the Mennonite Central Committee Canada position, or is the presentation your own?

Mr. Donovan Jacobs: With the Mennonite position.

The Chair: Okay, because you used the words “in my opinion” and you said you spoke on behalf of first nations communities. Whatever you say is fine, don't get me wrong, but I think it should be on record who you speak for. It is for the committee?

Mr. Donovan Jacobs: I would say I am speaking as an aboriginal person as part of the advisory committee to the Mennonite Central Committee.

The Chair: Well, that is the question I have. Are you speaking as an individual, or do you reflect the position of the committee?

That makes a big difference for this, because when people refer to your statements, if they attribute it to the one that you don't choose, then I'll be in a position to correct them. Could you clarify that, please?

Mr. Rick Cornelsen: I'll respond to that. As a staff person from the Mennonite Central Committee, I will say that we will own what is said here, as the Mennonite Central Committee, so it represents our organization.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We have a three-minute round.

Mr. Pallister.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Thank you very much.

You know that in three minutes we can't begin to address the many excellent points you've raised.

First of all, thank you for an excellent presentation.

One of the concerns that many of the aboriginal leaders and community members I've spoken with reiterate time and time again is that they understand very well the need to separate the political from the professional delivery of services in their communities. They are working very hard to develop mechanisms to do that, and where that doesn't happen, there's a problem.

That happens in communities, it happens at the federal government level, so why wouldn't it happen in first nations communities? It happens sometimes that the political gets in the way of the professional delivery of services.

I'm intrigued by your suggestion of a national institution, because I know many of the leaders have said to me that they don't want to appoint an enforcement officer. They don't want to appoint a redress officer. They don't see it as a mechanism that will work in their community.

They also resent the fact that what the government seems to be pushing here is not a nation model, but a community model. Six hundred duplicitous bureaucratic mechanisms just won't work in the minds of the people I've spoken with--and I've spoken with many.

So I'd like you to elaborate a little bit. Do you think this national institution could deal with things like problems with elections? Do you envision it as something that could have the ability to act, in a way, as an ombudsman for grievances when women on reserves feel oppressed? Right now they have really no effective way to address that in some communities. Do you see this as a mechanism that could give that kind of protection and additional redress to aboriginal people in this country?

Á (1140)

Mr. Rick Cornelsen: You're referring to, in our paper, the suggestion that some of the powers of intervention that the minister would have in this legislation should be transferred to a national first nations institution.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Yes. Are you just referring to the financial management issues, or do you see this as a concept that could be broader?

Mr. Rick Cornelsen: That's what we're initially referring to. However, again, just last night, to speak to the examples we were given--Treaty 3 in particular--they were talking about institutions established at a nation level for Treaty 3 nations, and they consider 28 communities part of that. They have already worked at some of what you call separation of the political and the administrative, and so on, within that model. I think it could work at that level as well.

Mr. Brian Pallister: It could be regional as well as--

Mr. Rick Cornelsen: Right. It's not practical, as you say, to be at a local level--

Mr. Brian Pallister: As you know, it's a model we've been advancing. It has come to us from many aboriginal communities that they would prefer to see that kind of a model pursued, as opposed to 600 separate this, that, and the other. So I was pleased to see the reference to it here, and thank you for your comment.

Mr. Rick Cornelsen: I would simply only emphasize, though, that whatever model it is ought to be initiated and constituted by the aboriginal peoples themselves so that they feel ownership and feel that it has legitimacy.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Precisely.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you to both witnesses for your thoughtful brief, with a lot of substance as well.

We heard yesterday, in fact, from an Anglican bishop whose approach was not unlike the stance taken by the Mennonite Central Committee in this.

In looking at your brief, you make the point that causing or forcing first nations to organize their affairs in a certain way really undermines the very concept of self-governance, and may even contravene the Canadian Constitution and international law in terms of international covenants to which we're signatory and that Canada stipulates itself to.

I've quoted this Harvard brief a number of times today already, that they make the point too that surely an aspect of true self-governance is being given the freedom to evolve and to develop the rules and codes under which you govern yourselves, provided they don't contradict natural justice, and so on.

Could you speak to the international law that you're making reference to and the larger view held by the ecumenical coalition KAIROS in that regard?

Mr. Rick Cornelsen: I'm not expert on the documents we might be referring to, but the UN has some conventions and so on that protect the rights of indigenous peoples to determine their own fate, and there is a draft UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples that states very clearly that indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination.

It makes sense on the ground as well; I guess that would be my additional observation. We consider this to be an issue of the spirit also, that it's about rekindling a flame within a people who have been almost snuffed out in some ways. To have the government imposing these kinds of things is only going to kill that spirit even more. To recognize the inherent right to initiate these kinds of things and then support it wherever possible seems a more practical solution in the long run, because it will take root and actually be successful.

Á (1145)

Mr. Pat Martin: You might actually get buy-in from the very people you're—

Mr. Rick Cornelsen: For sure. Again, the communities we have most relationships with and hear from express it in terms of rekindling a flame in their community. They say it's a long process, but it's one that has to come from within. I would simply ask: what can our society and government do in terms of legislation—and the royal commission refers to that—but also in terms of policy to be receptive to it?

Some of these communities are implementing royal commission recommendations, but we're not preparing ourselves for that.

The Chair: Thank you very much. I'm doing a round within a round, so Ms. Karatek-Lindell, do you have a question? Mr. Hubbard?

Mr. Dromisky. You have three minutes.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: I'm sorry I missed your presentation. I just came in, because I was talking to members of various bands outside and in the hallways and the foyers downstairs, getting information that I don't get at the table here.

However, what you have to say I respect highly. I have been involved for over 25 years with first nations people in northwestern Ontario. I have been to many reserves and I have met many people from the Mennonite community, and those who are living and working with the first nations people are doing a super, super job in northwestern Ontario. They are highly regarded by the first nations people. They are greatly respected, and I also respect them; therefore, I will carefully study your document.

I wonder if you have a feel for why nationally, all of a sudden all of the chiefs are totally opposed to this proposed bill, which is really going to be a benefit for the members of the bands, while at the same time members of bands are telling me they are for it; only the chiefs are against it.

Can you give me some kind of response to that?

Mr. Donovan Jacobs: I think when you listen to the people in the native community, you have, you might say, two sides, two perspectives on the issue. But I think for the majority of aboriginal peoples here in this country, when we look at Bill C-7, it's more that we see it as a threat, really, to furthering the dialogue on our aspirations to governance on a nation level and not a municipal level.

Bill C-7 really speaks to governance on a municipal level. When you change the relationship we have currently by law under treaty with the rest of Canada, when you shape it so generally and indefinably, it threatens.... It opens our relationship to be reinterpreted by the courts.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: You see what the people have been asking for, for decades and decades, that they want to be in control of their own destiny and they don't want the federal fathers always telling them what to do and how to do it and when to do it. All of a sudden you give them the power to be in control of their own lives and make all kinds of contracts, or whatever—you know what the bill contains. Do you mean to say the people are opposed to that, that they want the big father to tell them what to do, when to do it, and how to do it? That's the relationship they want?

Mr. Donovan Jacobs: That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying we really, truly, want to determine our own destiny and our own future as a people. But the level of empowerment that Minister Nault is offering to our people through this bill and this legislation is very limited. We want a broader definition and empowerment on a nation-to-nation basis, not just in the municipality.

The Chair: Thank you very much. We have two minutes left and we offer them to you for closing remarks.

Mr. Rick Cornelsen: Perhaps I will speak a little more to that question, and that can include my closing remarks as well.

Á (1150)

The Chair: Just keep it within your two minutes.

Mr. Rick Cornelsen: Sure.

I think there is also a lack of recognition of alternatives in both the non-aboriginal and aboriginal communities. When you hear some people affirming this bill cautiously, it may be simply as a last resort, in a sense of frustration, and not knowing what else there might be to cause change in the status quo. Nobody is saying the status quo is excellent or ideal.

One of our intentions is to give voice to some of the alternatives that have been presented to us. I would also suggest that as one of its priorities the federal government could support the exchange of information and storytelling amongst first nations. Then aboriginal people in the communities and across the country could hear from each other what was happening in some pockets. That could be a helpful role for the federal government to play. It would be a helpful stance for us to take on this legislation as well.

Mr. Donovan Jacobs: Bill C-7 does not speak to the aspirations of the native peoples of this country. It limits them and forces them into a mould of governance that will only make their lives more difficult with its implementation. We truly want to come to the table as people knowing that governance is an essential part of any community, but it is the authority we have when we come to that issue that is really the question.

So if we are truly going down a road where we are respectful of one another's peoples, nations, then Bill C-7 is not the way. If you want other venues--constitutional amendment.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I would like to try to move our schedule ahead, because we scheduled an hour and 10 minutes for lunch, and we all know we're not accustomed to an hour and 10 minutes for lunch.

If there is anyone in the room who is scheduled to address the committee this afternoon who would accept to present now, we would invite you to do that.

We are asking if Chief Dwayne Blackbird is here. What about Chief Louis Stevenson and Lloyd Stevenson? Leona Freed? Inez Mousseau? Sonya Scott? Elizabeth Fleming? Marcel Balfour?

Then we will go to spontaneous presentations. These are two-minute presentations that we offer to anyone in the room. If you wish to make one, just register with the table.

I invite Corena Letandre. Please proceed.

It is very difficult for me with these spontaneous presentations, because I do have to cut people off. It's not a long time, but we wanted to at least offer time to anyone who has a comment to make.

If I have to cut you off, it may comfort you to know that when the minister appeared, I cut him off twice.

Ms. Corena Letandre (As Individual): Sir, I am not the minister. I will make my presentation after lunch because I'm hungry now.

The Chair: Oh, you don't want to do it now?

Mrs. Corena Letandre: Not right now, because I wasn't scheduled for right now. I will give courtesy to those who have been scheduled prior to me.

The Chair: Is James Wastasecoot present and able to make a presentation? Is Raven Thundersky prepared to make a presentation? How about Edwin Mitchell? Gisèle Saurette-Rock?

Is there anyone else who wishes to make a presentation?

Mr. Gerald McIvor?

We have two minutes. Please proceed.

Mr. Gerald McIvor (As Individual): I'm a band member of Sandy Bay, Treaty 1. I just want to share an experience with the committee.

I worked for Indian Affairs in May 2001 during the first day of the community consultations on the First Nations Governance Act here in Manitoba. We did nine consultations. I want to tell you very honestly and truthfully today that the statistics they've come up with here in Manitoba are wrong. I could swear that in a sworn affidavit in a court of law.

Most of the people who were “consulted” were Métis and non-status people, or it was just a whining and griping session for a lot of people who had some personal motive against their chief and council of the day.

A lot of things that we were instructed to do through that process...people who were in the room, who were there just out of curiosity, were written down during the monitoring process as having been officially consulted.

The 10,000-people figure that Nault has is wrong. It's very wrong. I took part firsthand. I took all that raw data to the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs. When I took that raw data...which was fine. I didn't care about that, but I wanted my people to know the truth, how flawed the process is. I wanted them to look at the real code of ethics that INAC is following.

Á (1155)

The Chair: Thank you very much. Would Lisa Shewchook be here?

Are you Lisa? Come forward.

I should mention to anyone who is presenting for the two-minute spontaneous presentations that any documents you have, if you leave them with the clerk, will be translated and distributed to all members of the committee, even those who are not here today.

Please proceed.

Ms. Lisa Shewchook (As Individual): Backing for the defence and expansion of Canadian families in nature and law is the sole resource from the monarchy, the head of state in England, and the non-molested treaties with the Indians. This honour of life and the sole resource is the British Commonwealth. Any threat to this is a shame and is a reconstruction of events of wars of the early 1800s, somehow justifying itself in different ways and in the abuse of language.

Spontaneous presentation...unless I could have presented more. I treasure the opportunity and ask this committee of inquiry to compile input. Work of reference is unlimited by space and time. For example, in the instance of three questions.... How much data shall be included? How far shall other works be duplicated? How many hours is it worth devoting to any particular entry?

The province, in my experience, has systematically plagiarized perhaps the most valuable part of this in its recognition and the development of a third-party structure implemented through section 91.

Thank you.

Â (1200)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We invite Glen Monkman to please come forward to make his presentation.

Mr. Glen Monkman (As Individual): First of all, I think two minutes is a farce. Secondly, I guess I have to use my auctioneering skills to speak, because two minutes isn't much time to try to put what I wanted to say in a constructive and maybe informational way.

Anyway, the gentleman I wanted to point to was Mr. Pallister, who made a statement here. He made some comment about corruption, saying that the government had to jump in because there's all this corruption in our first nations communities across Canada. So here are the European people jumping in saying, “We've got to save the poor Indians from themselves”, which is a bunch of crap, of course. Pardon the language.

I have very grave concerns about the bill itself.... I don't care what people say here, because you're trying to serve the federal government right now. The bottom line is that this bill is taking our treaty rights away. The other thing is that the government has run our business for the last 300 to 400 years. To this day, they can't show us that they have succeeded in helping us to become what they wanted us to be, which was to assimilate us so that we become like you—white Indians.

Mr. Pallister said something about corruption. I guess I've got to say, boy, you guys have taught us well. The government has taught us how to be corrupt. If that is what Mr. Pallister has found, take it back to Nault and Chrétien and whoever else is up there who has a say with Indian or first nations people in Canada.

I think your deadline for this act is 2006. When I went through this bill, it repeats the same thing over and over and over again. I feel or am predicting that if this bill goes through, the majority of first nations communities in Canada will be under third-party management, because the minister is going to have full control through Bill C-7.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Glen Monkman: Can I—

The Chair: I've allowed you three minutes. I can't go further than that. I'm sorry, your mike is not on, but if you wish to leave your notes, we will translate them and distribute them to all members.

We get criticized for giving only two minutes, but it's the first committee I have been on that opens up to the floor at public hearings, and in trying to accommodate the people who are here we get criticized.

Mr. Glen Monkman: [Inaudible—Editor]

The Chair: No, your time is up, sir.

We will resume at 12:45, to be joined by the Provincial Council of Women of Manitoba.

The meeting is suspended.