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

Monday, March 24, 2003

0800

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

Vice-Chief Rick Simon (Regional Chief, Assembly of First Nations of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland)

0805

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

Vice-Chief Rick Simon

Mr. Pat Martin

0810

Vice Chief Rick Simon

0815

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Vice Chief Rick Simon

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

0820

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

Vice Chief Rick Simon

0825

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Vice Chief Rick Simon

Mr. Pat Martin

0830

The Chair

Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.)

Vice Chief Rick Simon

Mr. Larry Bagnell

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Vice Chief Rick Simon

0835

Mr. Pat Martin

Vice Chief Rick Simon

Mr. Pat Martin

Vice Chief Rick Simon

Mr. Pat Martin

Vice Chief Rick Simon

The Chair

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

0840

The Chair

Mr. Stan Dromisky

Vice Chief Rick Simon

Mr. Pat Martin

Vice Chief Rick Simon

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

0845

Vice Chief Rick Simon

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Larry Bagnell

Vice Chief Rick Simon

0850

The Chair

Vice Chief Rick Simon

The Chair

Chief Lawrence Paul (Co-Chair, Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nation Chiefs)

The Chair

Chief Lawrence Paul

The Chair

Chief Lawrence Paul

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

0855

Chief Lawrence Paul

0900

The Chair

Chief Lawrence Paul

0905

0910

The Chair

Chief Lawrence Paul

The Chair

Mr. John Paul (As Individual)

0915

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

0920

Chief Lawrence Paul

0925

The Chair

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell

Mr. John Paul

0930

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell

Mr. John Paul

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

0935

Chief Lawrence Paul

The Chair

Mr. Larry Bagnell

Chief Lawrence Paul

0940

The Chair

Chief Lawrence Paul

The Chair

Mr. John Paul

0945

The Chair

Chief Lawrence Paul

0950

The Chair

Chief Lawrence Paul

Mr. Pat Martin

Chief Lawrence Paul

The Chair

Chief Lawrence Paul

The Chair

Chief Lawrence Paul

The Chair

0955

Ms. Janice Maloney (As individual)

The Chair

Ms. Janice Maloney

The Chair

Ms. Janice Maloney

The Chair

Ms. Janice Maloney

1000

1005

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.)

Ms. Janice Maloney

Mr. Charles Hubbard

1010

Ms. Janice Maloney

Mr. Charles Hubbard

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Janice Maloney

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Janice Maloney

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Janice Maloney

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Janice Maloney

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Janice Maloney

1015

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Janice Maloney

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell

Ms. Janice Maloney

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell

Ms. Janice Maloney

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell

Ms. Janice Maloney

1020

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Janice Maloney

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Janice Maloney

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Stan Dromisky

Ms. Janice Maloney

Mr. Stan Dromisky

Ms. Janice Maloney

1025

Mr. Stan Dromisky

Ms. Janice Maloney

Mr. Stan Dromisky

Ms. Janice Maloney

Mr. Stan Dromisky

The Chair

Mr. Stan Dromisky

The Chair

Mr. Stan Dromisky

Ms. Janice Maloney

Mr. Stan Dromisky

The Chair

Ms. Janice Maloney

The Chair

Ms. Janice Maloney

The Chair

Ms. Janice Maloney

The Chair

Mr. Tim Martin (As Individual)

1055

1100

1105

1110

1115

The Chair

Chief Grace Conrad (President, Native Council of Nova Scotia)

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Tim Martin

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Tim Martin

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Tim Martin

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Tim Martin

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Tim Martin

1120

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Tim Martin

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Tim Martin

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Tim Martin

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Tim Martin

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Tim Martin

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Tim Martin

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

1125

Mr. Tim Martin

Mr. Charles Hubbard

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Tim Martin

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Tim Martin

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Tim Martin

1130

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Tim Martin

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Tim Martin

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Tim Martin

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell

Mr. Tim Martin

1135

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

1140

Mr. Tim Martin

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Stan Dromisky

Mr. Tim Martin

Mr. Stan Dromisky

Mr. Tim Martin

Mr. Stan Dromisky

Mr. Tim Martin

1145

Mr. Stan Dromisky

Mr. Tim Martin

The Chair

Mr. Tim Martin

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources

NUMBER 051

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Monday, March 24, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¾ (0800)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.)): We will resume proceedings on 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 invite to the table the Assembly of First Nations of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, Vice-Chief Rick Simon.

We have an hour together. We invite you to make your presentation and hopefully you will allow some time for questions from members. Feel comfortable. This is the kitchen table for us, although they put this fancy stuff on here. We like it to be very casual and friendly.

Vice-Chief Rick Simon (Regional Chief, Assembly of First Nations of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland): I think you should have copies of our presentation. John, who's here with me, is with the Atlantic chiefs. We work very closely together. He is now the organization chair in the Atlantic, so he is more than welcome to sit in, and it might be vice versa with the Atlantic chiefs' presentation.

The Chair: So it's Vice-Chief John Paul?

Vice-Chief Rick Simon: Yes, Vice-Chief John Paul. He is the executive director of the Atlantic chiefs.

Welcome to members of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources concerning Bill C-7, the First Nations Governance Act. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you on the matter of Bill C-7, the First Nations Governance Act. My name is Rick Simon. I am the regional vice-chief for the Assembly of First Nations of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland.

As you are aware, the AFN is structured so that it has a national chief and ten regional vice-chiefs. We have ten regions in the country. The Nova Scotia and Newfoundland region is where I've been elected. I'm in my third term, so I've been vice-chief for a number of years. I've seen a few ministers and a few national chiefs. The number of times we appeared before the standing committee in the past, I believe, was with Minister Irwin when he was trying to amend the Indian Act.

As you criss-cross the country in your hearings regarding Bill C-7, I'm sure you are starting to understand the first nations' perspective on why the so-called governance act is flawed. My time before the committee will not focus so much on the specifics of the bill. I'm sure the legal representatives of many first nation organizations across the country have done this well. I'd rather focus on the process that has led to my appearance here today and a lack of respect within that process.

As you are aware, the Government of Canada has used the term “partnership” over the past number of years rather extensively. In the spirit of goodwill and cooperation, the first nations have tried to see if this term really meant anything. The first nations people of this country, through the Assembly of First Nations, tried in vain to create a partnership arrangement with this current Minister of Indian Affairs, Robert Nault. What was the end result of this wasted effort? When the Assembly of First Nations spoke up and advocated what the chiefs of Canada were saying, our budgets were slashed tremendously.

So when the Government of Canada talks about good governance and accountability in the first nations across this country that will be achieved through this Bill C-7, the contempt starts to rise because of the lack of transparency within your government. Minister Nault has tried to marginalize the Assembly of First Nations and dismiss its role as a lobby and advocacy group when we did not agree with his point of view.

In the original introduction of the consultation process on Bill C-7, Minister Nault realized the Assembly of First Nations would be a problem to his well-oiled and -funded media blitz. How does he react? He uses the leader of a group that lays claim to representing off-reserve aboriginals and stands hand-in-hand with these individuals, with no questions asked regarding their accountability and transparency. At the same time, he funds a native women's group that buys into this process and he sidesteps the well-established group that is transparent and accountable.

So with a couple of brown-faced individuals, he kicks off the consultation phase to give the impression that he has first nations' support. This is the process I referred to in my opening comments, and the list of fork-tongued Government of Canada processes continues.

¾ (0805)

Some sections under the leadership give the impression to the general public that the first nations chiefs and councils have no accountability. Yet they are elected under the Indian Act, which is why there is a Minister of Indian Affairs, and it was the Government of Canada that created this system in the first place. I believe that trying to centre out the elected leadership as corrupt while they're elected under the Government of Canada's Indian Act boils down to Minister Nault admitting the failure of his government. When will the government realize that a direction to better our wellbeing designed by the government alone will not work, and that a true partnership must be the starting point of design?

If any of the first nations leaders elected to the position of chief were equal to their counterparts elected to either the House of Commons or provincial legislatures, they would be eligible for pensions for life after two elections. The general public fails to see the total costs of your elected officials, tallied up to the point of retirement. Our elected officials cannot even pay into employment insurance; they have no pension plans. Many have been elected and re-elected for countless terms, yet at the end of the day their retirement plans amount to nothing more than a pine box, in most cases.

How will the governance bill put the elected officials on par with their federal and provincial counterparts? It won't. Yet our elected officials are on call 24/7. Are your elected officials in the same situation? I think not.

In conclusion, this scenario describes a small part of what the first nations leadership face. They are constantly on the front lines, elected by your rules, yet they receive no perks like you do.

I urge you to consider this; if not, my view is that the die is cast anyway. This process is predetermined, and the value you place on first nations' leadership is the same value that Minister Nault has placed—which is very limited or next to nothing. I say this because he has done nothing to date but undermine the Assembly of First Nations, the elected chiefs of Canada. Some partnership.

Our only hope is that when the Prime Minister resigns, his version of the 1969 white paper will go with him, along with Minister Nault. Then we can go back to the drawing board with some hope of trying once again to forge a partnership with the Government of Canada. If not, I feel that future generations will not be so patient.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Martin, for seven minutes.

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Vice-Chief Simon, I was just going to ask if you were going to go through the brief you presented to us, as I understand your remarks were opening ones only.

Vice-Chief Rick Simon: We'll make sure you have the last page.

Mr. Pat Martin: That's fine.

I'd like to start by saying that your comments echo those of the legitimately elected leadership right across this country, who have come before this committee and brought forward very serious allegations, including some witnesses who have called it bribery and blackmail to coerce some kind of support for a bill that no one seems to want or need. We have heard the minister being called vindictive, using financial retribution to get his way. I didn't know if we would hear this here in Atlantic Canada as much as we did across B.C.

We have even had examples of bands and councils that feel they have been put under third-party management virtually as punishment, or as an economic hammer to try to coerce support and punish those who won't fall into line automatically. One went to court in Ontario and had the third-party management reversed. Apparently there was no financial justification for that kind of heavy-handed intervention.

So I would only comment that we are seeing a theme. The legitimately elected leadership has been bypassed or circumvented because you wouldn't automatically fall into line with this particular vision or world view.

When you say that the die is cast, that the outcome has been fixed, and that there is not much we can do about it now, I hope you are wrong. This is what my questions will be about. We believe there is still some strategy that can at least stall, delay, or block the introduction or passage of this bill. Amendments will be recommended.

If we can't completely block this bill, have you given thought to or done an analysis in your brief of what clauses you would oppose or what changes you would seek to at least minimize the impact of the bill or to make it acceptable? Would you like to comment on some of these?

¾ (0810)

Vice Chief Rick Simon: Thank you, Mr. Martin.

I guess the position that the Assembly of First Nations has taken in all the regions of the country is that the bill is so flawed it should be thrown out. Tinkering with it is only tinkering with the Indian Act. It doesn't work. It's obvious that the Indian Act doesn't work, because the minister has come forward with this governance bill.

For you people who are holding hearings across the country, it's obvious that you're here for a reason. It's because of something that you feel is not working. We feel the same way. The position of the assembly is, if you're going to sit down and try to design something, it has to be done in partnership.

I'm glad to hear that all across the country we're echoing the same tune. In some of the process that I've seen Minister Nault coming forward with, he took first nations-federal relations to an all-time low, in my mind and in the minds of many of the leadership across the country. There's no need for that. It's not about Minister Nault and what he wants versus the first nations across the country. I can't reiterate enough the fact that the individuals he has tried to sidestep are elected under the rules for which he is the minister. He's the Minister of Indian Affairs because there is an Indian Act.

For right or for wrong, the chiefs go before their elected leadership every two years. To totally disregard that, using whatever means to try to convince the general public that they're either a bunch of crooks or the process isn't working, that we know what's better for you and we're going to put something in place that's better for you, is not going to work.

We tried, as the Assembly of First Nations. As members of the executive, we sat down and tried to work with them in relation to this bill. The minister has said that, but he hasn't told the whole story. We were hung out to dry. We tried to advance some documents that would not only work hand in hand in relation to this governance bill, but we wanted to look at the bigger picture. The minister played us to the point where we were going to make some headway.

¾ (0815)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Is there a question on the government side?

Mr. Martin, you have five minutes.

Mr. Pat Martin: Okay. Thank you.

I wasn't quite finished with that line of thought, and neither were you. I'll give you an opportunity to speak further to it.

I would like to raise the point that one of the most worrisome presentations that we had was the Indigenous Bar Association. I have the name of the individual who made the presentation in Toronto on Friday. He made a fairly compelling argument that there's a justification for legal challenges. They have abundant legal opinions that this bill does cross the line in terms of minimizing, undermining, or derogating from traditional inherent aboriginal treaty rights, etc.

The government side has maintained that. They wouldn't have introduced this bill, you would think, if they didn't have legal opinions to the contrary. Even under the Freedom of Information Act, the government's side, or the minister, will not table the legal opinions that they have on it.

I guess one of the reasons that the minister came forward with this bill is that he claims they're bogged down with litigation. They have hundreds of court cases across the country that are currently outstanding.

The second justification is this campaign, this public awareness campaign, on allegations of rampant abuse and corruption on the part of first nations leadership. We're saying that it's a very deliberate misinformation campaign.

I'll go back to the legal opinion. Do you anticipate, or is the leadership in this region contemplating, legal challenges if this bill does go through?

Vice Chief Rick Simon: We've had a number of discussions in that regard. We have looked at a number of the regions across the country that are advancing the issue. For some of the legal opinions, they feel that there is justification to move forward. I know at this point, for us in this region, especially the Atlantic chiefs, a lot of legal people have proposed the issue to the chiefs that there are some possibilities here.

I'm sure that John in his presentation, and Chief Paul coming after me, will talk to that as well.

I know there are regions across the country that are asking us to come on board and put some type of class action process in place regarding this because the process is so flawed. We don't see any means for fixing it. That's why the position of the AFN is to scrap it and start over again.

Mr. Pat Martin: You mentioned that the minister seemed to punish some groups by cutting their funding and reward others for playing ball by enhancing or even creating whole new organizations and funding them. The NWAC has been the long-standing traditional voice of aboriginal women in the country. We saw a brand new women's organization formed by the former president of the first one, setting up shop with a new hat and a new willingness to play ball.

Of course, the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples makes the claim that they represent essentially all off-reserve aboriginal people. I don't know the legitimacy of how you actually join that organization or give your bargaining rights to that organization if you happen to live off reserve. That certainly raises a question.

But those organizations got millions of dollars, essentially to tout this bill. I guess it's a cynical use of funding, when the basic needs of communities aren't even being met because of underfunding, and the legitimately elected leadership is being undermined at the very time the most complex and comprehensive amendments to the Indian Act in 50 years are coming down, to take away the ability to even make a presentation or study the bill and do an analysis by taking away the funding.

I wonder if you could speak to the attitude or what people have been telling you about their feelings about how this money is being manipulated.

The Chair: I'm sorry, you'll have to do it on the next question. The time for your next question will allow our guest an opportunity to respond to this one. Your five minutes are up.

Ms. Karetak-Lindell.

¾ (0820)

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Thank you and good morning. Thank you for letting us come to your territory.

We have been going across Canada listening to very sincere witnesses talking about their history and what they feel their place in this country should be. I'm not sure sometimes if we're speaking the same language, because some people tend to talk a lot about wanting to be seen as a separate nation. I think the rest of the Canadian population is not sure what that means at times. Maybe sometimes we're talking apples and oranges because of our lack of our understanding of the history of the country and the role aboriginal peoples have played in Canadian history.

I have a couple of questions. You said you started negotiations with the minister at the beginning of the legislation, and you thought you were at an understanding. First if all, what was your understanding, as the chief of the Atlantic or as regional vice-chief of AFN, of what the discussions with the federal government should have been? What did you understand this piece of legislation was going to give the chiefs? I guess I'm trying to clarify what you understand about the nation-to-nation issue that a lot of chiefs have talked about.

Vice Chief Rick Simon: That's a very good question. I think the first part of your question is what was my and AFN's understanding that we had with the minister regarding this bill in the early stages.

We did try to work directly with the minister. We had agreed to try to work within his structure regarding changes to this governance bill, period. We looked at having somebody from the AFN side at the JMAC committee. I believe we had Roger Jones there for a couple of meetings of that group. We thought the possibilities would be there to advance our issue. That was just one component.

The other component was to engage the government in some sort of process in relation to treaty and aboriginal rights. That's where we view the real issue of governance as being, not in some legislation of a bill. We worked all of the regions as the vice-chiefs. We took the issue to the regions. We sat down with the chiefs and we talked about what we were trying to achieve and where we wanted to work with the government but at the same time advance the issue beyond that.

The end result was that the day before the chiefs of Canada sat down, Minister Nault was in the Ottawa Citizen saying the national chief and AFN executive's job is cut out, that they have to sell this bill to the chiefs of Canada.

Why couldn't the guy keep his mouth shut? And I told him that. He purposely undermined us because he didn't want to work together. He has created so much contempt with the chiefs of Canada that when they sat down.... This could have been the best thing in the world for us, but the minister and his contempt that he has created with the chiefs of Canada shot it down.

That's the climate that's out there right now. It has just got worse since then.

The second part was how we view this whole process of ourselves as nations and how we advance that issue. I believe a lot of internal work is required in the future on our part. Marshall is a very good example in this region. If we were moving forward as a nation or nations, then you wouldn't be seeing fisheries agreements all across this region; you'd be seeing us working together as a nation. But the government has been very good at dividing us.

¾ (0825)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Martin, five minutes.

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

I don't know where to begin. We've heard so much across the country, but we've heard overwhelmingly the recurrent theme that, as you've stated, if anything, relations between the first nations and the federal government have been set back fifty years by this process. And we've heard that the consultation process was an absolute sham and an expensive mockery, if you will. It didn't meet any of the tests for what could really be called genuine consultation, because consultation requires accommodation to some degree. You can't just say here's what we're going to do to you and ask your opinion of it and call that consultation. Really that's all that has gone on across the country.

I should tell you that the first witness to this committee was the minister himself. At that time he stated that bill has been crafted in consultation and cooperation with 10,000 first nations people across the country. In other words, he was leading people to believe that the bill is actually what the people want. Can you say what the consultation was like in this region, and do you think you were adequately consulted as to the content of this bill?

Vice Chief Rick Simon: Thank you again, Mr. Martin.

The short answer would be no. His process for consultation was a sham, as you said. We believe that. I don't believe he got into any communities in the Atlantic--maybe one or two. Where he held hearings outside of the communities, the numbers were so low that I think most of the people were staff who worked for the Department of Indian Affairs as first nations peoples, and they would be forced to go in there and get their numbers up. Whatever means it took for the minister....

And he's certainly reaching his hand out to the off-reserve groups. For many years here in this region we've always asked, show us who you represent. You talk about transparency and accountability. We don't believe that's there. With Corbiere, the onus is on the first nations chiefs now to reach their hands out and accommodate all their leadership, because they elect them.

The minister in his transparency and accountability hasn't taken that group on to ask them. In fact, he's reached out, grabbed them, no questions asked, and went out in front of the general public and said, I have the president of the Native Council of Canada or Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, whatever their name is.

As I said earlier, he represents the chiefs of Canada. He's the Minister of Indian Affairs, and that's why the chiefs of Canada are elected under the Indian Act. And that's what the Assembly of First Nations is made up of. He has just dismissed that. He's picking and choosing what it's going to take to advance his cause at the expense of us. That's the bottom line.

Mr. Pat Martin: I think you're going to hear lines of questioning, and certainly some of the opposition parties have been furthering these lines of questioning, that over a period of a couple of years there was a really systematic campaign to find isolated incidents of financial mismanagement across the country and to try to thread that together into a common theme, that the mismanagement and financial abuse on reserves is so rampant that it justifies this kind of heavy-handed intervention. Unfortunately, some of the Liberal members have a similar line of questioning, that we had to do something because there's so much abuse out there.

We know that 96% of all first nations file their audits on time and that the Auditor General already says first nations communities are over-audited. In fact, some of the fiscal challenges that come along are due to chronic underfunding and trying to do the impossible by meeting the basic needs of people with an inadequate budget.

Can you speak to what I believe is a very cruel myth that first nations' financial management is rampant with abuse?

¾ (0830)

The Chair: Maybe on the next hour allotment. We're out of time again.

Mr. Bagnell.

When the questions are longer than the answers, you're the ones who get cut off. But it may comfort you to know that when the minister appeared I cut him off twice.

Five minutes, Mr. Bagnell.

Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): Thank you, and thank you, Chiefs, for coming.

I just have one question and it is related to your comment on the benefits that people working in first nations governments have or don't have, actually. The first nations in our area are working on a public service for the first nations so that the employees and chiefs, etc., will have some type of transferable benefits. I'm wondering if you're working on anything in that area to bring you up to par with other governments and fulfill some of the lacks and the needs you were mentioning in your remarks.

Vice Chief Rick Simon: Is there anything in the works? No. Has the issue been raised many times behind the scenes with the leadership? Yes.

Chief Paul is an example. He has been elected for nine terms, two-year terms, so 18 years. When he retires there is no pension. As a vice-chief, I have been elected three terms. I can't even pay into UIC.

Any elected leadership has no capacity. Yet we are put on a footing that's similar to that of MPs and MLAs, and there is nothing there. Why waste your time to put yourself in a position of leadership when at the end of the day there is nothing there? If we were to be in a similar situation to yours, elected three terms or elected nine terms, we would have some means for the future, but that's not there. We don't have the capacity for organizations to match whatever we choose to invest. It has become a situation where the best people don't want to rise to the occasion because there is nothing in it for them, and it's unfortunate.

That's why I raised the issue here, for you to think about how the chiefs get hung out to dry, yet they work 24/7. I work with them constantly and I go home at the end of the day and business is done. But they have to go home and be chief, and get called up in the middle of the night or early in the morning for whatever issue. But that's the nature of the beast, and that's why business gets done.

So that's why I raise it.

Mr. Larry Bagnell: Thank you.

The Chair: Does anybody want two minutes, or do you want to wait for your next five-minute round?

Mr. Martin, five minutes.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you.

I get a disproportionate amount of time because I am the only opposition member here. So it goes government, opposition, government, opposition.

I'd ask you again to follow up on the consultation process. They spent $10 million to $15 million on this consultation process and the budget is $110 million per year to implement Bill C-7, to ram it down the throats of people who neither want it nor need it. We believe that's incredibly low, that they are underestimating what it's really going to cost to try to force first nations communities to adopt these default codes if they become law.

We have learned since that this money is coming right out of the A-base budget of DIAND, so rather than going into programs or housing or whatever it could go into, it's going to go into, as I say, imposing things that people don't want.

So I would ask that you comment on that, but I'll ask you to comment on the overall funding of the budget first, please.

Vice Chief Rick Simon: As I say, he has the well-oiled machine and the finances to go with it to move this bill forward, and it's unfortunate. If the AFN had bought into the consultation process, there would be bucks hand over fist to set the people down and explain how we are going to take away their rights and we are going to put them on a pedestal, above the norm--you know, all these issues that we are against.

But the capacity for consultation is nothing more than a sham. People didn't buy into it, and I'm sure the chief, in his remarks here, will outline the fact that in every community there are people who are opposition and most times they view this as a means to slam-dunk the leadership. Minister Nault has tried to capitalize on that and he has tried to use that as a means to paint everybody with the same brush. That's unfortunate, because the majority of the communities are well structured and, at the end of the day, they are trying to do too much with too little.

The government will say they are doing things that are wrong and they don't have the authority to do it, but they are trying to meet the need. That's the step the minister hasn't elaborated on. He stops at the point that you are doing something wrong. He hasn't taken it to the point that the bucks aren't there to do what's required.

¾ (0835)

Mr. Pat Martin: That's an excellent point.

The name of the bill includes “Governance Act”, but it undermines the very idea of self-governance to impose governance codes on people when surely an aspect of self-governance is the freedom to develop your own institutions of governance, ones that are culturally sensitive and in keeping with traditions.

Can you speak to that basic contradiction of having somebody else write the codes under which you govern yourself.

Vice Chief Rick Simon: I'd even take it a step further. It's called the First Nations Governance Act, and I'm appearing before a group that's called the aboriginal affairs standing committee. There's a good example of contradictions. It's the same difference. It's a case of saying whatever is required to give the impression it's right, but we're here to say it's wrong.

Mr. Pat Martin: I'm not sure anybody's hearing you, given that the line of questioning hasn't differed from when we started in B.C. You'll probably get the same line of questioning in Halifax.

Vice Chief Rick Simon: We're of the impression that it's not going to make any difference anyway; the die is cast, as I said, and--

Mr. Pat Martin: It's 1969 all over again.

Vice Chief Rick Simon: --hopefully, as we said, when the Prime Minister resigns, he'll take Minister Nault with him. The whole concept of the white paper will go with them, and we'll start over again.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Before I go to Mr. Dromisky, I might point out that we're spending an awful lot of time bashing the minister. We are not accountable to the minister and we don't report to the minister. You can take all the time to bash the minister you want, but that's not why we're here and that's not who we report to. We report to the Speaker of the House.

As for the dirty laundry, well, I wish somebody would do it outside this committee, because we want nothing to do with the fight between the minister and first nations communities. It has nothing to do with this committee, but if you continue, I'll let it go.

Mr. Dromisky, you have five minutes.

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

[Editor's Note: Inaudible] ...in light of the statement you made that the bill--in essence, this is what you said--really contains the best thing that ever could happen to the first nations people in this country, but because of the relationship between the first nations leaders and the minister and the problems you have identified in the last whatever minutes, that bill has in a sense been completely thrown out, rejected, because of that relationship between the two bodies. That's the way I'm interpreting what you have been saying this morning.

I don't really accept that, because there are a lot of wonderful chiefs in this country who are great thinkers. I don't think that if the relationship between the national executive of the first nations people soured, became bitter, with the Minister of Indian Affairs in this country, it would be justification for throwing out something everybody wants--in other words, self-governance.

It's about a series of tools created by the people on the reserves to help further self-determination or create those experiences where self-determination becomes more and more realistic and more meaningful. True democracy, or at least--there's no such thing as true democracy--more democratic measures, would be carried out on the reserves.

Why is it we've heard what's good about this bill from so many people but so many chiefs across the country are not talking about the bill? It doesn't make any difference what we present through the department or this committee, anything from the federal level; you're going to constantly get the same kind of rhetoric about self-determination, first nations sovereignty, treaty rights, and so forth.

Well, I can understand and appreciate that, because those things have to be discussed and they have to be settled as quickly as possible. But we're almost completely ignoring Bill C-7, its contents, and the kinds of benefits that could spring from it, benefits created by the people and for the people, not for the federal government.

¾ (0840)

The Chair: I'm looking for a question.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: I want to a reaction to my statements.

Vice Chief Rick Simon: Oh, I thought I was listening to Minister Nault.

Mr. Pat Martin: You are.

Vice Chief Rick Simon: To be perfectly honest with you, he gave us the same line. Every time the Assembly of First Nations sits down with him the i is not dotted properly or the comma is not in the right place. We have to go back to the chiefs, and if they don't like it, it doesn't move. When is that going to stop?

He says, from my perspective this bill determines what's good for you, so stop fighting us. I can bring in a handful of chiefs to show I have support. It's more of the same.

And I didn't say the bill was good for us. I said, with the relationship being so sour, it could have been the best thing for us, yet we would have rejected it because of your government's person who's on the front lines, and that's not right.

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

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you.

Actually, having gone across the country, I'm pleased that a lot of the leaders we've spoken to didn't choose to deal with the bill clause by clause. It isn't that they hadn't given it adequate study, but they raised the debate to a higher plane. Maybe it was the plane it should have been at for the first consultations with the AFN about where we should go. It's raised it to a higher plane about the implementation of treaties, about land and resource management, and about true self-governance and true sovereignty as a third level of government.

Over and over again we were told what would have happened if there had been genuine consultation. What if the minister or the Government of Canada had come to first nations and said, what do we do to elevate the standard of living conditions for first nations people; what do we do to end the evil and the social tragedy of the Indian Act? The answer would have been, let's not waste our time tinkering with the colonial document, let's move on to meaningful implementation of the treaties. Let's move on to serious discussion about land and resources. Those are the things that should have been at this table.

I'd ask you to comment on that in terms of lands and resources. I've been to Eskasoni and talked to them about resource management of the lakes, and we've been to the Heiltsuk people in B.C. and talked to them about management of their own fisheries. We've heard from the Moose Lake Loggers in Manitoba, who sit on the tract of the largest single cutting rights in the free world, but it's owned by a foreign corporation. They can't even get a contract to truck the logs to the plant, never mind have input in the plant.

Can you speak about the larger issue of the meaningful changes that could be made in the relationship in terms of land and resource management as the way forward.

¾ (0845)

Vice Chief Rick Simon: Even at that level you're still dealing with structures and bills that are designed by the government, such as the specific claims bill. There's no treaty policy per se within the federal government, and that's why, when I talked about us trying to engage a real process in the early going, that was the direction we were trying to go, to say let's get rid of this comprehensive claims policy. If you want to put in a good structure of governance, then work with us and you'll have something that at the end of the day the first nations will be a part of and accept.

But at the same time, the real issue is not about putting in administrative structures you're comfortable with. It's a bigger picture; it's talking about our fair share of the lands and resources and treaty implementation without something that's preset.

Look at what happened to your group last week in Winnipeg; that's a good example. Here's a group engaged in a process that's going to determine their own structures at the end of the day by getting rid of the Indian Act. This bill is set to design where they have to go. That's why the people are mad.

To me, what's so hard to understand about that? Stop trying to tell us what's best for us and work with us. If there's animosity at that level, then let's deal with that animosity and put it aside, because there's a bigger picture for the better good. That's my feeling.

Mr. Pat Martin: I agree. I also agree that it is doomed to fail. If you don't have buy-in from the very people who are going to be affected by these changes, how can they possibly think it's going to succeed without even increasing the heavy-handed intervention?

It has been an educational process for me. We've heard it from one end of the country to the other. Some of us are starting to understand what's really wrong with this picture. From the line of questioning I hear from some of the other parties, I don't think it is sinking in all the way around.

I do want to clarify one thing. You shouldn't take it at face value that there has been representation to this committee citing all the good things about the bill. I believe that's what one of the questioners implied. The overwhelming majority--

The Chair: Mr. Martin, if we start correcting one another, we'll spend all of our time arguing amongst ourselves. When you make comments and we don't agree with them, it's on the record. We can debate that in Ottawa. But if you're going to be the cop of this committee, it's not going to work. Let the others have their opinion, as we allow you to have yours.

Mr. Pat Martin: Fair enough. I'm satisfied to say the record shows that the majority of the witnesses are vehemently opposed to the bill. There is very little support that wasn't bought and paid for, at least. Thank you.

The Chair: Does anyone from the government side wish to ask questions? Mr. Bagnell.

Mr. Larry Bagnell: If this bill had been developed in the respectful manner you talked about and Bill C-7 was what came out, is that better or worse than what now exists within the Indian Act?

Vice Chief Rick Simon: If we had worked in consultation, this bill wouldn't have come out the way it did, because the minister made a number of commitments right up front. I'm sure you'll hear about it in some of the later presentations. It was supposed to be optional. It's not. It was supposed to have a non-derogation clause. It doesn't. These are just some of the blatant things that the minister is on the record as saying all across the country in the early stages. I know that Roger Jones, the AFN's person who sat in on two or three meetings, came back to us and said, the minister came in and he gave us assurances that these things were going to happen. I'm glad we weren't part of that, because the assurances aren't there. Things were said and things were done, but at the end of the day it's not what we wanted.

I'm not a lawyer but I certainly have a good ability to listen, and some of the legal people are telling us that this bill is flawed in a number of areas. I'm focusing on the leadership part. I feel that it attacks the leadership. It's going to be worse. It's going to put the onus on the leadership, chief and council, even more. Our analysis is that the fiduciary relationship of the government is going to be with the elected officials in the communities. As I said, the best and the brightest are not going to rise to the occasion because this bill is going to hang them out to dry. Who would want to put themselves in that situation?

If there had been some sort of partnership, then we would have been able to advocate where we wanted to come from. But the minister wasn't interested in that. He's too concerned with trying to dismiss the AFN as useless.

It's like I told him. And I'm not bashing him. If he were here, I would tell him the same thing.The first nations are still going to be here when his term is up. We'll just have to deal with his legacy. Hopefully, somebody else will rise to the occasion who is more respectful. We had some respect at one point. Jane Stewart was very respectful, and we seemed to be making headway at that point.

But that's what happens with government. If we're in a situation where a person is trying to do some good on behalf of the first nations, then they're moved. We feel that Nault was put there to set the process back, and I think he's doing a good job.

¾ (0850)

The Chair: We invite you to make closing remarks at this point.

Vice Chief Rick Simon: Well, I guess the only closing remark I choose to make is that I purposefully focused on a couple of issues that I felt, as an elected leader, would work for the elected leaders. I don't think there is a fair brush being used. I hope the committee looks long and hard into that aspect, because at some point nobody is going to want to be a chief or councillor in the communities because they are going to be painted with such a brush. They are not going to bother. When that happens, the first nations are really...they're having a hard enough time now trying to advance the issues. It's going to become worse.

That's my view. That's my closing comment.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I now invite to the table, from the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nation Chiefs, Chief Lawrence Paul, co-chair. I understand Peter Barlow is not going to be attending. Is John Paul going to be replacing him?

Chief Lawrence Paul (Co-Chair, Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nation Chiefs): I'll take on the burden of getting our views across.

The Chair: I see that John Paul is going to be presenting later; therefore, he will not be able to participate here. Okay.

Chief Lawrence Paul, the floor is yours.

Chief Lawrence Paul: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

The Chair: Just a moment.

It has been brought to my attention that he is in the same timeframe. Therefore, we will ask you for your presentation, then we will go to his presentation, and after that we will go to questions to both of you.

So, Lawrence Paul, please proceed.

Chief Lawrence Paul: Okay. Good morning, ladies and gentleman.

I see we have a Pat Martin, distant cousin to Paul Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: I wish, I wish. I'd like to have that money.

The Chair: If he were, he could be prime minister.

¾ (0855)

Chief Lawrence Paul: On behalf of the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nation Chiefs, we are pleased to have the opportunity to share some of our knowledge and thoughts about the First Nations Governance Act. You have received a copy of our presentation in advance, and I hope you have read it. I now wish to highlight a number of areas.

In the meantime, the Atlantic Policy Congress is a unique organization. We take in five provinces. There's no other organization in Canada of the size we have down here in the Atlantic.

I'll call you my colleagues because I think I'm on an even par with you--maybe a little above, I'm not sure.

The APC is a first nations organization based in Atlantic Canada. Its members include all of the first nations communities in the four Atlantic provinces and the three communities in the Gaspé in Quebec. They are the Mi'kmaq, Maliseet, and Passamaquoddy peoples. In total, we cover 36 communities with a total population of 30,000.

Of the first nations communities, 9 have less than 300 in total membership, and 7 have total populations in excess of 1,000, led by Eskasoni with 3,451 members.

As first nations people, we have always prided ourselves on our patience. No doubt we are a patient people. However, when you examine the government agenda, how long it has been in play, its variations, and its success, clearly we have to acknowledge that the federal government also has been patient and can probably win the patience contest.

They can afford to be patient. First nations people are not so fortunate.

The First Nations Governance Act is another version of the policy of assimilation of first nations people. The unfortunate and practical reality is that first nations governance has been and for the future is being defined according to Canadian practice and customs, not that of first nations.

The organization and structure of first nations governance and first nations society is moving further and further away from the traditional governing styles of our ancestors. Fundamental principles like peace, kindness, sharing, and trust are being relegated to history.

What do we want? We want partnership--to be treated with respect and as equal governments. The government has to acknowledge that by its own policies and laws it has displaced first nations' governance capacity, especially with respect to institutions and human resources.

No doubt the Indian Act was and continues to be a gross violation of human rights, and on a practical level it prevented first nations communities and their governments from developing and evolving as other people were allowed to do globally. The First Nations Governance Act will merely perpetuate the wrong that has been committed for over a century by imposing more inappropriate systems and regimes on people who will likely be unprepared to receive and maintain them effectively.

Instead, the government should be working with first nations, concentrating on how to remedy the damage done and support first nations government development. We want development, and according to the UN, a capable government able to perform key functions effectively is a precondition for development.

What are key functions of government?

They are the establishment and maintenance of a political system that promotes human rights, law and order, and the protection and enforcement of property rights and contracts; the formulation and implementation of long-term economic policies that promote economic stability and sustainable economic growth; the protection of the environment; the formulation of social policies that promote equity and access to livelihood for the population as a whole; the regulation of monopolies in internal and external trade; investment in and maintenance of the social and economic infrastructure, including health, education, research and development, and equal access to information.

The source of thinking about the First Nations Governance Act approach and its contents stems from the work of consultants, the same people the Minister of Indian Affairs slams as being make-work technicians, but who seemingly are okay if they're on his payroll.

¿ (0900)

A series of papers was commissioned. An examination of these papers revealed that the premise of good governance is financial, program, and governance accountability; moreover, that the accountability framework is achieved through fiscal management, a link between financial and program accountability, information and reporting requirements, deficit accountability, compliance mechanisms, governance structure, and accountability to citizens.

Was there meaningful consultation? The short answer is no. The Minister of Indian Affairs claims that consultation conducted in a follow-up to the cabinet mandate and prior to the tabling of Bill C-61, as it was then in the previous session of Parliament, was the most extensive and technically advanced consultation campaign engineered by the government.

By his own estimates, approximately 10,000 individuals participated in the consultation. There is nothing to be proud of in those numbers. First of all, there are hundreds of thousands of first nations people across the country.

Secondly, it is not about quantity; rather, it is supposed to be about quality. Furthermore, substance is what should be addressed versus employing efficient processes or technology.

Granted, there is no clear understanding about what constitutes meaningful consultation. However, the courts at various levels across the country have spoken of principles such as good faith and reasonableness.

At the outset we stated that we have treaty and aboriginal rights that we really have not been able to enjoy mostly because of the resistance of the federal executive. It is legislative measures such as the First Nations Governance Act that prevent us from enjoying our constitutional rights.

In our view, the First Nations Governance Act violates our right to self-government mostly because it's not optional and it strikes at the very heart of the right of self-government, namely, the right to design and operate a system of leadership selection and the right to design and operate a system of governance that is appropriate for the community involved.

We do not wish to spend any more time than is necessary in pointing out the flaws in Bill C-7. It is our view that it is entirely flawed due to the fact that it is driven by inappropriate considerations. It lacks any meaningful consultations. It will merely bring about increased and unnecessary burdens, and it does nothing to assess the real issues that could produce good government for the purpose of enhancing first nations development or improvements to the quality of life in first nations.

However, for what it's worth, we can advise the committee that the Minister of Indian Affairs gave us assurances that our rights would not be prejudiced, and such could be assured, to some degree, by the inclusion of a non-derogation clause.

I'm having a hard time with these words. I usually speak in Mi'kmaq. I'll throw you all for a curve here, right?

The Chair: You're doing well.

Chief Lawrence Paul: Of course, such clauses do not appear in the present formulation of the bill, and we understand such clauses are to be removed from all federal statutes.

The design and development of the three band governance codes could be a long and costly process, yet there is no indication as to how first nations will be equipped to undertake such work.

We also believe that the imposition of such governance on each and every first nation is simply unwise. Many of our first nation communities number fewer than 500 people. The more reasonable and sensible approach in dealing with good governance is probably to keep it simple, cost-effective, yet effective and accountable.

The imposition of legal capacity on first nations societies is likely to produce undesired and unknown consequences. The common law, as decided from time to time by Canadian judges, does not fully appreciate the distinctiveness and uniqueness of the first nations society. In the absence of such clarity, it could be easy for judges to simply apply corporate concepts and principles to the evolution of what is the nature of a first nations society, and surely such would be detrimental to the society in the long term.

The law-making clauses are merely a modernization, and a poor one at that, of the delegation of the inferior law-making power for first nation governments versus the ever-expanding, flexible law-making authority of the federal and provincial governments. It is also a fact that the alleged consultation process never sought the view of individuals about these matters and it is the bureaucracy that has produced the listing.

The enforcement scheme in the First Nations Governance Act is entirely dependent on first nations access to the provincial court system. Such system is basically inaccessible at this point due to over-burdened provincial court systems and the fact that the provincial authorities assume no responsibility or desire to be accommodating.

We could hazard a guess that the provincial governments have not been consulted on these matters.

The search and seizure provisions appear to trample on fundamental rights and freedoms that obviously would not be tolerated in Canadian society.

The enforcement authority that is contemplated in the First Nations Governance Act is complex. Again, there are no indications as to how first nations governments would be equipped to train their enforcement designates in carrying out such important authority.

In conclusion, clearly there are mutual interests and goals between the first nations people and the Government of Canada. Addressing good governance is one of them. However, a partnership approach, coupled with an intention to address other issues such as the treaty relationship, aboriginal rights, and social and economic development, is essential.

We encourage the members of this committee to think outside of the box, which the executive and bureaucracy have failed to do, and to think in the long term.

Questions. What will it cost, really? How will the First Nations Governance Act improve the quality of life for our people? Who will be more accountable, DIAND or first nation leaders?

I want to continue by stating that all our first nations chiefs and councils fully support and endorse full accountability to all our members. We are accessible to all our members 7 days a week, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Many of us do not have the staff or the administration to deal with all the issues and concerns of members that chiefs have to address on an ongoing basis. The chiefs and councils in the community are servants of the people and they are their government. We have two years to fulfill our mandate and to conduct the business of the community in the best way we can.

I look at what's going on here and it is non-first nations politicians deciding what to do about governance in our communities and imposing a system of governance that would achieve governmental objectives and not respect us as leaders of our communities.

This legislation is not unlike the first Indian Act of 1876, when a group of parliamentarians decided to create councils, which they saw as the best way to implement a system of government for those Indians. Over 127 years you have not learned that to impose a system upon us will not work, and yet you do it again and again. Your actions are based on a mindset of parent-child, not on a government-to-government relationship.

As for partnership, it means a full exercise of control over the first nation communities by the federal government.

¿ (0905)

We need and do have rules by which we operate today. Many first nations have separate procedures, processes, and capacities and they manage large financial resources. And a key problem with this governance bill is that it paints us all with the same brush. A bunch of people who are not accountable are wasting taxpayers' money. First nations losing candidates, radicals, and a few bad apples have been an excuse to impose your ways and values on how to be democratic and accountable in the time in office.

We have always, in the past treaty relations, had alliances with the French and other visible minorities. I hope you, as members of this committee, listened to what I had to say.

As for the Liberal members, you are part of a caretaker government until Prime Minister Jean Chrétien leaves. The new act was part of his legacy, as was the 1969 white paper policy. My perspective on this white paper policy was never tabled. Governments are working hard to eliminate us, as first nations people, and all our aboriginal and treaty rights.

The Liberal members on the committee, we believe, will toe the party line for Minister Nault, will not make any amendments, and will bring it back to the House for a third reading. It would be good if you listened to us and did not do that, and did not return the bill to Parliament but scrapped it. I also know that you, as Liberals and a majority of the committee, will do what you are told by your House leader and party.

Our chiefs are very concerned about putting an additional requirement burden on our staff at the first nations level. We believe that the one-size-fits-all approach to the First Nations Governance Act is wrong.

Our communities are very diverse in size and values. A Mi’kmaq, Maliseet, and Passamaquoddy approach to governance needs to be created to address some of the issues; it should not be one created by the federal government. Our people need time to create their own legitimate systems. Canadian values are not necessarily totally consistent with the way things are done in our communities.

Another major area of serious concern is the cost of what is being proposed. The track record of the federal government in estimating costs is not so good, particularly on the issue of the firearms registry system.

Will the new First Nations Governance Act legislation cost $25 million, $250 million, or $2.5 billion to implement, and over what time period? Are first nations expected to do these things with the existing financial resources provided?

In particular, if half of our first nations in this region are in some type of DIAND financial intervention situation, new things cost money and legal obligations cost money that first nations do not have. We need time and money to ensure that the system developed makes sense to our people now and in the future, and that this is not another quick fix by us or the federal government.

Capacity and building capacity in our community is an important element of where we are and where we go. Our vision of our governance must be built over time. A fixed-up first nations government will not address the real issues or concerns of our people.

Our people want equity, the recognition of all our aboriginal treaty rights, and the assimilation of our rights. The Marshall decision was a start, but a great deal more has to be done about our rights. Our people do want the quality of life to improve. We want comparable services to other Canadians. We want to be able to fully contribute to your economy. We do not want dependence. What we want is independence from the current system that exists, which is totally dependent on external government support.

We need to fundamentally change our communities in such a way that social assistance is not a way of life. We need our system to change to allow us to achieve tangible results for our own policy, our own jurisdiction, and our own successes. We want a better future for our children and grandchildren with a system that works, not one that is controlled solely by the federal government or DIAND. We need to build this future for our people.

Our view is that it is our governance based on our values and our needs, with input from our people over time, not by a two-year schedule established by DIAND and Parliament.

That concludes my presentation, ladies and gentlemen.

¿ (0910)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Before we go to John Paul, you mentioned that this committee would toe the line and go back to the House with few amendments. On that point, I'm convinced there will be many amendments, and very significant amendments. We got it after first reading, and I know that from all sides we will go through the process of clause-by-clause and there will be amendments, I'm convinced.

We thank you because you addressed the issue of Bill C-7. Therefore, you are helping us make those amendments.

Chief Lawrence Paul: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. John Paul.

Mr. John Paul (As Individual): I don't have a speech, but I'll just reiterate some of the points Lawrence raised.

One was on a non-derogation clause. We had correspondence from the minister indicating he would include that in the legislation. When it didn't happen, it affected the credibility of the chiefs in terms of what will be in the legislation. We are looking for protection of our rights, and it really comes down to that. We hope the committee will look at where we're going with this stuff.

It also goes back to what Mr. Martin was talking about on the cost. Taking money from the existing budget to do this doesn't make any sense. Cutting existing programs and services at the community level to create a whole new regime doesn't make sense. If the government did things that way, a lot of things would never get done. What if you had to cough up the money for the firearms thing, in terms of the $1.2 billion spent there? You're asking us to create a whole regime in two years and you're assuming it can be done with the existing resources. That just isn't realistic.

The other big concern is what the role of DIAND will be beyond this legislation. Part of this legislation includes default mechanisms that come into play by regulatory means, so if bands or communities don't have the kinds of codes that are supposed to be in place, the default mechanisms will get written by the government, by the department, and a regulatory regime will provide the basic requirements that everybody will have to follow. Those things won't come with any financial resources, and will perhaps create a bigger democracy to implement a whole new bunch of rules on our communities with limited input.

On the regulatory side, our experience with Corbiere tells us that changing a couple of words in legislation has very significant implications. Imposing a whole regulatory regime on our communities as a default plan has more implications than people are willing to realize or look at. I think this committee has to seriously look at what this could mean. You may be creating more negative implications than the positive ones people are trying to cover.

The reality is that we need a system, as the member said, that works for our communities, is sensitive to our needs and aspirations, and makes sense. If you just create a bureaucratic system or impose a bunch of bureaucratic rules on communities, what does it do? What does it do to the values of those communities that they find important, of caring for each other, helping each other, and supporting each other? If you make the system so foreign to who they are, how will that help people in the community, in reality?

What will be the impact of some of these things like legal status? It's unknown, really. It doesn't matter whose legal opinions they are and what legal opinions say the implications of that will be, because it will be defined by the courts and judges. It will be defined in terms of what happens. I don't think some of these things were thought all the way through in terms of the potential implications.

Chief Paul mentioned the enforcement side. We have a hard enough time trying to implement a dog bylaw in our communities. Trying to get the RCMP and Department of Justice or provincial government to act on our behalf to implement a dog bylaw is probably more draconian than trying to enforce some other law in the community. The act assumes that all this stuff will be taken care of in terms of the enforcement regime.

¿ (0915)

You have to wonder why the provincial governments would open their arms and say, okay, we're going to implement these 100 new powers that communities are going to have. It's going to impact them if we have to go through the provincial system. It's going to impact our ability to enforce it, because the way it works right now is that the band is usually the one prosecuting and defending, while it's the individual citizens who end up with whatever the outcome is.

The federal enforcement agency, which is the RCMP in a lot of communities, is very reluctant to deal with these bylaws or with laws from the community. They look at it and say, well, you know....

I remember one discussion held here in Nova Scotia, where the communities tried to establish a tickbox for enforcement of bylaws in some of the communities. They worked almost five years to get the little box on the ticket, so that somebody could actually enforce the bylaws. Five years later, it didn't happen. There was such a jurisdictional brouhaha over who was going to do what that it was left out. What happened is that it is probably more complicated now to do something in a community than it is to prosecute people for any other law. This doesn't make any sense. It's like we are making things more complicated, but for what purpose or to what end are we doing this?

This is basically where I'd like to leave it. We'll open it up for questions. I'm sure Lawrence has many more comments beyond what he's said so far, so I'll leave it at that.

The Chair: Thank you very much, especially as you raised points that need to be discussed.

Mr. Martin, for five minutes.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you, Chief Paul. And thank you to the other Mr. Paul, as well, for your very valuable input.

In your closing remarks, at least in the copy that we have, I think it's interesting that you actually challenge members of the committee and government to “think outside of the box”. Some of the criticisms we've heard is that this bill is tinkering with a flawed document and that it will actually perpetuate the imposition of other people's views of how your people should be living. I agree that it's a great failure that we haven't thought outside the box and been more creative. If it's only once in a generation that government finds the political will to actually deal with first nations issues, then this opportunity is really going to be lost, and it'll be fifty years before they have the guts to face it again.

There is a saying that the definition of insanity is to keep making the same mistakes over and over again and to expect the results to be different. Some people have summarized things this way.

I'd ask you to go back to legal status issue, which is where I would like to start. Some first nations leaders have told us that with the shift of the legal status and fiduciary obligations to the band and council, a raft of lawsuits might result for things like a person being mad at the band and council for not getting their bathroom renovated when they thought they should have. Now they'll be able to sue them. Maybe this is taking it to a ridiculous extreme, but they might get sued over a doorknob, or some disgruntled individual could bombard the band and council with issues like this.

Could you speak to the possible dangers of this kind of thing?

¿ (0920)

Chief Lawrence Paul: I have to correct my colleague Rick Simon. I was elected chief 10 consecutive times. I said that we should follow the electoral procedure under the Indian Act for provincial governments and the federal government and let them go to the polls every two years. Then they'd be on their toes, the same as we have to be. You can't make mistakes. If you get elected 10 consecutive times, you must be doing something right in order to get the people to vote you back in.

I look at the big picture of what is going on in Ottawa. I know that right now the government in Ottawa is in turmoil. In November there will be a leadership convention. It looks to everybody, not only to me, as if Paul Martin will win that. I predict that there will be a federal election around March, with a whole new slate. If you have a pie that's old and mouldy and a fresh-baked bun right out of the oven, which one would you take? You'd take the fresh-baked bun right out of the oven.

I don't know what to think of the governance act at this point in time due to what I just said. Why not put this governance act on hold? Make a recommendation to the House of Commons that this governance act be put on hold until after the federal election, when we'll have a new Prime Minister. Maybe we'll have the same Minister of Indian Affairs, maybe we won't. Maybe we'll have a different makeup of cabinet. Maybe they'll have different policies that they want to implement.

Maybe we'll scrap the governance act and start all over again with proper consultation with those whom this governance act really impacts upon, which is the registered Indians of Canada. It doesn't impact on the non-status or the wannabes. In Millbrook one individual got $30,000 to hold consultations. Of course, I had a look around to see what was going on there. We had the father and two sons, and the rest of them weren't registered Indians at all. Those are the ones they did the consultations with. The registered Indians from the Millbrook First Nation didn't attend. If they wanted to talk to us, why did they hold the consultations in a hotel downtown? Why not in our community hall, where our registered people would have felt at home and expressed their views? They didn't do that. I would say that we had no impact on the governance act.

I have said this many times. We can't go into self-government. We have no funding mechanism.

Judge Pat Curran, in the woodworking case, said that aboriginal title exists in coastal communities in mainland Nova Scotia. That has been appealed, of course, by the provincial government. But that's a start.

We always sit with our pro-Confederation treaties here in Atlantic Canada and some parts of B.C. Those treaties were signed in good faith and sincerity with the British colonial government. It's enshrined that, after Confederation, Canada took responsibility for these treaties. The federal government can't go around them, under them, over them, or through them. They have to deal with them.

¿ (0925)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Ms. Karetak-Lindell, six minutes.

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: Thank you.

Thank you very much for your presentation this morning. As I mentioned to the first presenter, we have been going across the country listening to very different views, but the underlying foundation seems to be the treaties. After hearing from different people about their interpretations of the treaty agreements, we have learned a lot about the history of the country and the basis of the treaties. As an aboriginal person, I agree with the presenter who said our history of the country is missing a lot of the input of aboriginal Canadians. I just want to put that on the record.

The bill says in paragraph 3(a) that it will “provide bands with more effective tools of governance on an interim basis pending the negotiation and implementation of the inherent right of self-government”. I know that a lot of presenters don't wish to comment on the actual legislation itself, but perhaps you could give me some understanding on how many Atlantic bands are doing self-government negotiations. Is your organization involved in any self-government negotiations? I think we've gone off the track a few times and have not really talked about the legislation. I understand that too, but I want to find out how many bands are involved in self-government negotiations at the present time.

Mr. John Paul: I can give you some basic details on that. Since the Marshall decision two years ago, considerable dialogue has occurred among communities in Quebec, P.E.I., New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia on engaging in a self-government process.

In Nova Scotia, an MOU was signed last June to work toward a process and self-government type negotiations. The discussions are still at a very exploratory stage in other provinces, in terms of just getting people to talk. It's going to take a long time to address these issues, but I know chiefs are trying to get to that pinnacle of self-government that's at the other end of the tunnel--the rainbow, or whatever. But they are having a lot of discussions to figure out how best to do that.

In spite of the federal policy approaches and the federal parameters of self-government, our chiefs and our communities are trying to come up with something that works for them, not necessarily a system that will take 200 years to do. Work is underway. The process hasn't started yet, but people are looking at that. They have a variety of concerns about the potential implications of these discussions. We are working toward those things, but things take time.

It's only been since the Marshall decision a few years ago that they've really taken seriously the full implications of our treaties in this part of the country and the seriousness of those treaties. The obligations that flow out of those treaties are very serious and have long-lasting implications on the relationship between our communities and the governments, both federally and provincially, in going toward something that works for us.

So we're at an early stage, but I know there is work going on to try to get to that, and it takes time.

¿ (0930)

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: Have any of those bands checked to see whether they will be exempt from this legislation because they are talking about self-government, or have they gone that far?

Mr. John Paul: I guess there is an exclusion order in the act that talks about being far enough along in terms of an AIP or a final agreement. But that would have to accelerate the process 1,000% to get to that stage, because when we look at self-government negotiations across the country, hindsight shows that you are looking at a minimum of five or ten years to go from framework agreement to an AIP to a final agreement or legislation. If you are dealing with complex issues, this stuff takes time.

The legislation will be here in perhaps a couple of years' time, or be tabled perhaps, as some of us have proposed.

The Chair: Mr. Martin, for five minutes.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you.

I think we're getting down to some really valuable stuff here. I think there's great wisdom in what both of you recommend, Chief Paul and Mr. Paul.

Some leaders have appealed to the minister to put this on hold or to take one step back. This thing's off the rails, the arse is out of her, this dog ain't going to run--however you want to put it. It's busted. This process is so bad and the relationships are so bad, it's not going to work. So if we could take one step back.... With the same amount of monetary investment, imagine the progress that you could make in meaningful dialogue in terms of implementation of treaties, etc.

I'm glad you've stated that message clearly, and I hope it's heard. Whether it's due to the election pending or to a new leader pending, there are lots and lots of good reasons for why this thing should just be put on ice, to take one step back and to start over. So I appreciate your making that point and putting it on the record.

As for money, I asked the previous witness about implementation. The government budgeted $110 million a year for this over five years. It's a half a billion dollars, but we believe it is way too low. The Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs went to Deloitte & Touche, the accounting firm, and asked them what it would cost roughly—which is hard to say, given that these codes and regulations have not been written yet and we've never seen them. Even if a band wanted to cooperate and implement some of these changes, what would it cost? The range went up to $400,000 per community. In B.C. alone, it was going to cost $100 million in year one, without including the rest of the country.

Somebody mentioned that this could be Canada's next gun registry or our next billion-dollar boondoggle. Imagine allocating that amount of resources to the treaty process?

What are people saying? Chief Paul, I heard you at the Halifax confederacy in 2000 speaking very passionately at the microphones about this wrong direction. What are people in this area saying about these resources being allocated in the wrong direction?

¿ (0935)

Chief Lawrence Paul: They're quite disturbed about it. As native people, we and our council don't seem to be making any headway. You get very disillusioned and depressed and seem to be fighting a losing battle continuously.

I've been around since John Diefenbaker was prime minister and when Mr. Pearson first came on the scene with Allan MacEachen. With Pierre Elliott Trudeau and then with Brian Mulroney, we had first ministers conferences trying to assign our rights in the Canadian Constitution. I've seen different premiers come and go. I've been around a long time. Maybe I shouldn't be saying this because of my age. When she was the Minister of Indian Affairs in John Diefenbaker's government, I can remember Ellen Fairclough asking me, “Do you think that native people will be self-sufficient in 25 years?” I told Mrs. Fairclough, “Don't read too many Grimm's fairytales. That's never going to happen”.

But what I can't I understand as a chief is why, right down here in the land of Canada, the federal and provincial governments can't sit down with us in good faith and sincerity and really negotiate our treaties and the benefits under them. We want a part of the profits of the natural resources—lumber, gold, and natural gas. Then we can go into self-government because we have a funding base to support our programs.

We're intelligent enough to look after our own people. But every time we want to talk about aboriginal title or the business under that treaty, the door is slammed in our face. We have to go into the court system. Anything we ever won wasn't by way of negotiations, but by the Supreme Court of Canada.

I have said this many, many times, and I will say it to this committee, I can't understand the mentality in this “Gathering Strength” policy--full partnership, full disclosure, with everything on the table and no hidden agenda. I've seen a fairytale before, but this is right up in the same category as Little Red Riding Hood.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Bagnell, for five minutes.

Mr. Larry Bagnell: Thank you.

As I think Mr. Martin said, my understanding is that many first nations are run very well and do an excellent job. My understanding is that in these cases, where things are set up and running well, a lot of the provisions in Bill C-7 wouldn't kick in. Some of the provisions give guidance for where systems may not be in place. Is this your understanding?

Chief Lawrence Paul: I just speak for my own first nation. We're accountable. Our lot is looked at by the regional officer in Amherst and is scrutinized again by headquarters in Ottawa. I get kind of disturbed sometimes because they paint all the chiefs and councils across Canada with the same brush.

Sure, we have a few bad apples, I'll admit that. The white race has a few bad apples, the yellow race has a few bad apples, the black race, and the Hispanic; we all have a few bad apples. We're not pure. I'm not going to say we're all apostles or anything like that, that we commit no sins. Sure we have bad apples, but don't tar us all with the same brush, because we practise accountability. We always have.

On the proposed governance act, there are some points in there where it talks about accountability, but there are other parts John talked about. Good grief, they can go into your house and they don't even have to have a search warrant, or they can get a search warrant from a judge; they'll have evidence there for that judge to issue a search warrant for them to go in there, right?

Good grief, we talk about Saddam over there in Iraq, but aren't they putting us in the same category if they go in there? Good grief, already we've had five doors kicked down, and two of them were already open. They didn't have to kick the door down. That's stupid; break the window instead, it's cheaper. It costs us money.

I've been before a standing committee six times now. I was there at Bill C-31, under John Munro. That's why it's going to the Supreme Court again now, because it doesn't come under the charter, under the equality section and stuff, so that's going to the Supreme Court. It's a flawed, biased piece of legislation. We told John Munro, that's just no good, it's going to cause too many problems, are you going to listen? He's gone away, and now it's going to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court has to correct that policy.

I would like to go forward, and some of the things they say in this policy could possibly be amended with consultation with the registered Indians of Canada, the people the Indian Act really impacts upon. It's not for other people; they don't count, because the Indian Act doesn't cover them, so why talk to them? Talk to the people it really impacts upon, the registered Indians of Canada, not anybody else. I could never understand that mentality. Why talk to somebody the Indian Act doesn't have an impact on? Talk to the people it impacts, the registered Indians of Canada. I have said this many times.

I'm going to talk quickly, because the chairman there is right on the ball. He's worse than a judge, good grief.

We get so frustrated on things. I told reporters before, and I'll say it again, do you want to see communism working the way it really should have worked? Go to the first nations across Canada, as it were. We're owned by the state. The land we live on is not our land; we don't own one square inch of that land, even with our treaties. Our treaties say we never gave up any of it, but we did. For the clothes we wear, the food we eat, the houses we live in, the health care we get, and the education we get, we're totally dependent on the state because we have no funding mechanism.

Everything we ever had was taken from us, and they gave us nothing. They made us totally dependent on the federal system, and we can see no way of ever getting out of that. It seems to me there's this hole we're mired in and we can't ever climb out of it. We cannot seem to get it into politicians' heads, whether provincial or federal, listen, sit down with us in good faith, respect our treaties, let us go forward as partners, and give us a share of the profits from natural resources. We can run our own governments, because we're intelligent enough to do it, and take our rightful place--

¿ (0940)

The Chair: Thank you very much. And you're correct, I'm so sticky that I'm interrupting now to give you five minutes for closing remarks.

Chief Lawrence Paul: I think I'd like to have seven.

The Chair: You didn't take too many opportunities to breathe, so I will give you that chance now. We'll ask John to do the first five minutes and then we will come back to you, Chief.

Mr. John Paul: The reason we're here is to see whether the committee will listen and whether the committee will take seriously the concerns we raise. We are very disappointed in terms of how this has played out so far and are discouraged by the way this has all played out, because all we want is a better future for our communities. We don't want to be dependent on the government. We want to have our own economy, we want our own resources, and we want our own government. We don't want the government to impose stuff on us.

All the leaders I know in our part of the country want real accountability and want to achieve that in the best way that makes sense for their communities. Creating a bunch of rules just won't do that. Our leaders in our communities need to be given the opportunity to create the system that works for them; it's as simple as that. Only in that way will it be legitimate and supported by all our members in the communities and supported by our children and our grandchildren into the future. Unless we are given that opportunity, whatever comes is just going to be something else.

I will just make a final comment. As Lawrence said, we are very patient, and one of our treaty ratification processes took 47 years. That kind of tells you the level of patience we have with some of these issues. If it isn't me, it's others who will be at this table to present our views in the future, and Lawrence will be here for at least another 20 years for you guys to hear his views.

¿ (0945)

The Chair: You'll be here for 20 years, but you only have a few minutes.

Chief Lawrence Paul: I'll just sum up. I suppose you heard a lot of slamming of Robert Nault right across the country, but I have to commend the minister for one area where he had a vision. And I commend him on that. It's the field of economic development, entering into free enterprise. We have to enter into free enterprise. We have to compete for the almighty dollar with our non-Indian brothers and sisters.

We were in a vacuum for a while there; we weren't going anywhere, but thanks to a former premier here in Nova Scotia, the Honourable John Savage--I give him a lot of credit--we got a mechanism in place where we could get some extra funding coming in. With the extra funding we were able to go forward in the field of economic development.

But it's a long process when you put a proposal, a feasibility study, or a business plan to the federal government to get some money out of the economic development fund. It takes ages in order to get that funding. If you have to wait for that, you lose your clientele, so that kind of sets back first nations going forward in the field of economic development.

We understand that. Economic development is one thing we have to enter into. We have to go into free enterprise and we have to compete for the almighty dollar the same as everybody else.

Education is the lifeline of our people. More of our people are going to universities, and more of them are going into blue-collar trades. It's only a matter of time before we have more aboriginal people as members of Parliament and more native people as MLAs.

We have the first doctor in the Mi'kmaq Nation now, Dr. Robbie Johnson, and he has opened the doors for other Mi'kmaq people--if he can do it, so can I. That was a major breakthrough.

We are going forward, and one thing I'd like to touch upon is that in the school system now they don't tolerate racism whatsoever. They don't tolerate any racial remarks. I have a 17-year-old son--you probably wonder how that happened, him being the age he is, but I won't go into that. There's hope for the new generation of leaders. Discrimination will not be there; they will not tolerate it. I don't know if I'll be around when that day comes. I hope I will, but maybe not; that's one thing.

I'm not saying you fellows are practising discrimination or racism or anything like that. Don't take it the wrong way. There are some good people, too, who don't practise that. But I hope this committee would listen to our recommendations.

As I said earlier, the federal government right now is in turmoil. There are leadership people who have aspirations to become the new leader of the Liberal Party. Things are just kind of stagnating, and things are going to stagnate until after the leadership convention and a new cabinet is in place. Why are we going forward with this proposed governance act? It's like taking the pulse of a deceased person. You're not going to get a pulse. Why don't we just scrap it?

Why don't you go back to Ottawa and say, listen, we're intelligent people, and we're going to scrap this bill until after the new federal election, because it makes more sense. It would make more sense to the non-Indian people of Canada that we scrap it. For a change, let's listen to the native people; if they say this bill is not in their best interests, well, I think quite a few of us MPs here, whether Alliance, New Democrats, Liberals, Tories, independents, or Parti Québécois, are intelligent too. I think we'll concur with Chief Paul and his recommendations.

If I had a chance, I'd go up and address the House of Commons and tell them this is the right thing to do. But I'm not going to get that chance, I don't think. What do you think, Chair?

¿ (0950)

The Chair: I'm just enjoying this. Keep going. I've had a very difficult four weeks, and this is fun. This is great.

Chief Lawrence Paul: So we scrap this governance act and we start over. I think that would be the most intelligent thing the House of Commons ever did in the last 25 years.

I'm not slamming the House of Commons now, I'm just making a comment. I noticed you made a little frown at me when I said that.

Mr. Pat Martin: It's probably just gas.

Chief Lawrence Paul: I look at things. You take social accord. As first nations in Atlantic Canada here, for three years we put together our own policy that we were going to implement in the field of social accord. We looked at all areas and we wanted to put a policy in place that slowly but surely would take our people out of their dependence on social assistance.

Out of the blue, they came down here about a month ago and said, no, we're not going to fund the social accord policy anymore. They funded it for three years, and they said, no, we're not going to fund it anymore. That was three years of hard work, three years of aspirations, three years of hope--dashed. Why would the federal government spend money for three years and then, out of the blue, say they aren't going to fund it anymore?

We were going to put something in place that would have weaned our people off social assistance. Now, for some reason unknown to us, they decided not to fund it. I'd like to have this question asked sometime, Mr. Chair, to ask somebody, why did you do that?

For a change, we were going to have our own policy that would have been accepted by our own people. And when you put policy in by your own people, like the chief and council and your technicians and band membership, then you can't yell discrimination because you did it yourself. So it works both ways. And it's acceptable. What we put in place is acceptable.

I could tell you right now what we have. It's the same as what your provinces have. We hired a welfare inspector to check all our records to make sure there's no fraud. It wasn't acceptable to our people when we first implemented this policy and hired this individual. But when we said, what we want to do is treat everybody fairly, and they saw we were doing that--everybody was going to be treated fairly--they accepted it. We don't hear any bellyaching now, because this inspector comes in once a month and checks all the social assistance files to make sure there's no fraud going on. It's something that's acceptable because we put it in place. If you could, remember that.

Let us put policy in place because we live with our people. We know their feelings. We know their ways. We know what they'll accept. We know we can put things in place that will improve their standard of living.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I know you won't cut me off, right?

The Chair: I was just about to do that. You could see it in my eyes. I want to thank you very much.

You mentioned the minister. You had a compliment on his efforts for economic development. As a teenager--and even to this day--the best hockey stick I ever played with was a MicMac. I'm wondering if somebody was using your name, or if these sticks were produced through your economic development efforts. I don't see them around anymore. Do you know?

Chief Lawrence Paul: No, I don't. I can't really answer that question, but I'll check it out.

The Chair: It was the best hockey stick I played with, and maybe you should look at bringing them back. We really enjoyed playing with a MicMac hockey stick.

And politics is much like hockey. Once in a while you meet a Gretzky in politics, and I think you are a Gretzky. You're good at what you do and you have fun while you do it. I think Wayne did that too. I want to commend you. I thank you very much.

Chief Lawrence Paul: Thank you, committee members. It was a pleasure.

The Chair: I now invite, from the Confederacy of Mainland Mi'kmaq, Janice Marie Maloney. Would you tell us what your responsibilities or titles are?

¿ (0955)

Ms. Janice Maloney (As individual): Absolutely. I'd like to say good morning to Mr. Chairman and all the members of the committee.

My name is Janice Marie Maloney. I'm here on behalf of the Confederacy of Mainland Mi'kmaq. I'm here to replace Eric Szcheile, who unfortunately is in court today and was unable to give the presentation himself.

We did provide written submissions in February. All the members have a copy of that. I will not go through it verbatim; I'll just give an overview of his submission.

The Chair: May I ask, are you a barrister or solicitor with the same firm?

Ms. Janice Maloney: The Confederacy of Mainland Mi'kmaq is a tribal organization. We represent the six mainland communities in Nova Scotia, namely the Afton, Pictou Landing, Millbrook, Glooscap, Annapolis Valley, and Bear River First Nations. I am director of statutory requirements on governance.

The tribal organization, CMM, is growing. We provide all kinds of services and advisory support to our communities. We have had to restructure.

The Chair: Thank you very much. We have an hour together. We invite you to make your presentation.

Ms. Janice Maloney: Thank you.

The purpose of this presentation today is to outline concerns with respect to Bill C-7. I hope to stick specifically to the bill and not widen my scope too much beyond it.

The underlying principles proposed in the bill seem to be accountability, transparency, redress, and community involvement. The CMM band communities themselves are not opposed to these issues. These are things they currently practise and have traditionally practised in community governance. So it's nothing new. These are things they have brought forward and are continuing today.

However, even though these principles are items of importance and seem to be the underlying principles in the bill itself, there are some specific areas of concern we'd like to bring forward. The first item I would like to mention is the non-derogation clause.

I'm a little nervous, so it's hard for me to pronounce things.

The Chair: Okay, I will cut in right now, then. This is a kitchen table. We want it to be very relaxed. Don't worry about being nervous. There is nobody important around this table other than you.

Ms. Janice Maloney: And my boss just walked out the door.

Bill C-7 had contained a section with respect to the non-derogation clause that had been removed at some point. This type of clause would clarify the intent and the scope of the act for all the players involved. Clause 3 of Bill C-7 states that the purpose of this act is to offer the tools to design and implement governance for an interim period of time. You mentioned paragraph (c) earlier, which contains this statement. This itself would extend that. It would add clarity and certainty.

We also made a recommendation for the wording of the clause:

For greater certainty, nothing in this Act shall be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any existing Aboriginal or treaty rights of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada pursuant to section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982.

This is one of the items we put forward.

The second item was with respect to the complaints and redress mechanisms of subclause 11(1), paragraphs (a) and (b). Paragraph 11(1)(a) gives an individual the opportunity to complain to the chief and council or to band management against a breach of code. If the individual believes the code itself was breached, he or she can have a complaint heard by an impartial third body, which is a good thing. It would act in the role of an ombudsman.

The problem here is with paragraph 11(1)(b), which also gives the community members, or anybody, the opportunity to complain against a discretionary decision made by the chief and council or a band employee. This, in and of itself, extends much further than any government has to go with respect to accountability. This would slow down the system, the running of government in our community. Any decision the chief and council make will be open for complaint. If a person doesn't like a decision...let's go forward and have it flip-flop. It would take away powers and controls from our chiefs and councils.

We suggest this clause be modified to include paragraph 11(1)(a) and remove paragraph 11(1)(b).

The other section we mentioned was on the enforcement and prosecution of bylaws--which this committee has heard--with respect to clauses 16 to 29, the powers of band councils. This section extends the enforcement powers of the peace officers or band enforcement officers. It allows them to search and seize property.

This section has the potential of increasing violations of the constitutional rights of individuals, one's rights against unlawful searches and seizures. The bands themselves would have to train these officers on the Evidence Act to be at the same level as peace officers, the RCMP, or any municipal officers, so they would understand and go forward with all the rules with respect to search and seizures.

These clauses themselves don't necessarily meet the problems that have existed with respect to bylaw enforcement. A big problem in the past--and you've already heard--was how do we enforce the bylaws? Who has jurisdiction? How do we pay for it? When something does go forward, who is going to prosecute?

At present, it's the band. Again, the band acts as defence and the community members are in the middle. So our concern is the enforcement, going forward with the jurisdiction. Who will train these individuals and how will they go forward?

À (1000)

The last section we highlighted was on the overall implementation of resources for first nations compliance. The bill actually brings forward the opportunity to design and implement our own codes. The question is, how is this done? Who's going to pay for it?

At present in the Canadian government system, there is a justice department that is able to go through all the laws and make sure everything's in order, that all the ducks are in order and the laws themselves actually will work. If you go through the codes and you don't have the backup or the funds to design such codes, you're setting up the communities to fail. You're setting them up not to design the codes, but to fall back again on the default codes, which again are not developed. We don't know what those are going to be.

It's just up in the air. If we fall back on the default codes, we still have the same Indian Act structure.

With respect to the bylaws, who's going to train them? Who's going to keep the bylaw enforcement officers on? How are you going to prosecute? How are you going to collect fines? Without the funding in place, the overall security, there's nothing there to support the communities with respect to that.

I'm just zooming right by.

So those are the areas the CMM noticed and wanted to bring forward. The written presentation was supported by resolution through the board of directors meeting, comprising six community chiefs in our area.

Just as an overview, the items of concern were the redress mechanism, the non-derogation clause, the enforcement procedures, and of course, funding.

À (1005)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I can say, for my part, this is the one presentation in four weeks that has really addressed Bill C-7 directly, with possible positive outcomes, and I want to commend you for that. Regardless of all the recommendations to scrap it and to take a step back, the committee doesn't have the power to do that.

We will deal with every clause, all 59 of them, and you have helped us. Through our questioning, I'm sure you'll help us some more.

Congratulations and thank you.

Who wishes to start? Mr. Hubbard, for five minutes.

Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): Mr. Chair, I'll repeat what you just said.

Thank you for coming. Certainly it's an opportunity for us to hear directly in terms of positive comments for our so-called amendments.

With that, one question that comes up quite often--Mr. Martin has raised this on numerous occasions--is on the cost of trying to bring the intent of this legislation into being--the system of developing procedures and codes and so forth. As previous presenters have said, we have a good number of first nations, here in Atlantic Canada especially, that are small communities, fewer than 300 people.

In terms of your experience in working with the six first nations that you speak about here, could the six groups work together in terms of the development of codes and methods of redress? Could they address this collectively, instead of each of the six trying to develop its own system of methods of election, codes for operation of their bylaws, even the system of redress? Rather than having six redress officers--and some suggested the idea of an ombudsman--could there be cooperation among the six different groups to help one another out and seek a common solution to what this legislation speaks about?

Ms. Janice Maloney: Thank you, Mr. Hubbard.

I believe there is the opportunity for communities to work together, and it's shown by the different tribal organizations that they do work together. The smaller communities are further behind in that they don't have the funding and they do have to pool the resources.

That question in and of itself, can they work together and will they work together, would have to be put forward to the leadership, to the chiefs of each community. And how they want to do that and in what forum they want to work together if they so choose....

Now, saying that they work together, you also have to remember that each community in each specific area is an individual community. They are distinct from each other.

Nova Scotia is Mi'kmaq. All the communities here are Mi'kmaq, but they're still distinct. There are areas of concern in different areas, obviously, things that have to be highlighted and taken into account. So definitely they can, but it's up to the leadership, and individual concerns have to be taken into account.

Going one step further, how is this going to be funded? As it stands now, from what I understand, there's no funding guaranteed to put this forward.

We've asked how we are going to do this, and we've received the answer, no, we haven't got there yet; we haven't developed the default codes yet. We haven't gone that step further to see where the funding would come from.

So I guess that would be the big concern.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: The other concern that the bill speaks about is this. We're going to develop election processes, and with it, since Corbiere, we have a system where off-reserve people, according to the Supreme Court decision, should be allowed to vote in elections in the same way as people living on reserve.

In terms of the Mi'kmaq people, they're not just in Atlantic Canada, but we also have significant Mi'kmaq communities in the United States. People go there; they have a common relationship all down the Atlantic coast. In fact, some of your members, I think, are in Iraq right now, having joined....

How would you see this off-reserve election process working in terms of Corbiere, when people off reserve would be able to vote in band elections in the same way as people who are living in their communities?

À (1010)

Ms. Janice Maloney: The system on how to include off-reserve members in elections has already been outlined through, I guess, the elections manual of DIAND. They set out a critical path of how to do that, when to mail out, when to receive, and all that other good stuff.

So the last set of elections and the new set in our communities are coming up, including off-reserve members--and I apologize that I have to get back to this--with respect to the additional expenses to each community that Corbiere has added, because you have that additional step of actually mailing out. Some do registered mail; others don't. Waiting for that to come back has increased the timing as well. It's a good thing, but you have that extra timing and that extra expense, which will be further shown with the new governance act, with respect to this bill.

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

The Chair: Mr. Martin, six minutes.

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

Being the only opposition member here, I apologize for being out of the room for much of your brief. I'm sorry, but I do have to take some personal time. It leaves this side vacant.

Not having heard the substance of your brief, it's a little unfair for me to question specifics.

I'll ask you a question, then, generally. We just heard Chief Paul recommending essentially that the government take one step back and perhaps wait to table this bill until such time as we have a new Prime Minister and probably a new Minister of Indian Affairs. Given the apprehension of first nations leaders across the country about Bill C-7, has your organization talked about this as a first starting point?

Ms. Janice Maloney: I can't comment very far on that because of my position. I'm actually replacing someone who prepared the written submission and who has attended all the meetings with the chief and council. I can go as far as to say that Chief Lawrence Paul is on our board. I expect they would have discussed that issue, and the idea of stepping back is something they would have discussed.

Mr. Pat Martin: That might be a shared point of view.

Ms. Janice Maloney: It might be, but I can't go that far.

Mr. Pat Martin: I understand, certainly.

I guess you dealt with some specific recommendations for amendments.

Ms. Janice Maloney: The items that I dealt with were specific to the written submission. It would be to include a non-derogation clause to define the scope and add clarity to the bill itself.

I dealt with the redress section, paragraph 11(1)(b), having community members or anybody being able to put in a complaint against a discretionary decision of a chief and council, and moving the control or the ability to move forward on any of the items that they need to deal with on a day-to-day basis.

The other item that I would have overviewed was the bylaw enforcement section.

Mr. Pat Martin: Oh, yes, the search and seizure provisions.

Ms. Janice Maloney: Those clauses didn't actually deal with the problems and they have added additional problems by not providing a mechanism for funding or training for support for the bands and for the bylaw officers.

Mr. Pat Martin: Good point.

Do you have any view regarding subclause 9(3)? I don't know if there are any independent economic enterprises on the first nations that you are representing, the Confederacy of Mainland Mi'kmaq, that would apply, but under the accountability rules, not only would you have to make your financial statements known to all band members of any enterprise or activity, you would also have to make your financial statements known to any person who asks, even if that might be a company that was in direct competition with one of the economic enterprises that you might have in your community.

Have you dealt with that issue, or do you have any views on that?

Ms. Janice Maloney: One of the member communities of CMM is Millbrook First Nation, and they're quite active in their economic development. I can't go forward and speak for the Millbrook First Nation. Chief Paul was here and he would have commented on the economic development portion of it.

On accountability and disclosure, again, at the outset I said it is one item that our member communities all support and have been working toward. And it's an area that traditionally has been in the communities and in our leadership.

À (1015)

Mr. Pat Martin: I guess I'd like to take it further.

Chief Paul has finally closed a deal to bring the first call centre onto any first nations community in the country. They'll have an American firm coming into Canada and setting up a call centre on reserve.

That's a private enterprise in a very highly competitive business. Under these rules its contemplated that they would have to show their financial statements to their direct competitors, the people they competed against to win this job. Do you think that takes accountability to a higher standard than any other Canadian business would be held to?

Ms. Janice Maloney: I'm trying to figure out where to go with that.

I guess from where I stand, I am representing the six communities. Because I haven't been privy to the conversations, I can't go forward and say that it is a higher standard as opposed to.... If you asked me personally I would say yes, but I can't go forward and offer that from where I am sitting.

Mr. Pat Martin: No, that's fair enough. I understand. Thank you.

The Chair: Ms. Karetak-Lindell.

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: Thank you.

I'm interested in the section that you have on page 4, the enforcement and prosecution of bylaws.

Can you give the committee a bit of an overview of what happens today? If there is some disturbance, or let's take a case of spousal assault, what happens? When someone calls, who do they call, and then who comes in to respond to the request for law enforcement? I know it might be different across different bands, but I'm wondering what it is here.

Ms. Janice Maloney: I think we are looking at our submissions with respect to the bylaw enforcement. You mention spousal assault, and that's Criminal Code activity, so the RCMP would be called.

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: Okay. Could you maybe give me a comparison between a bylaw enforcement and the Criminal Code?

Ms. Janice Maloney: Yes. If we're looking at bylaws, one of the big problems in our communities is dogs. You've already heard that. What do you do with the dogs running loose in the communities and who do you call?

The answer from our community is that there's either no one you can call or, if you can call someone, the ability to actually do something is limited. There's no mechanism for ticketing. In this particular proposed legislation there is a mechanism for ticketing. The question is, how do you collect that and how do you go forward? If you're not able to collect it, the next stage would be to prosecute. Again, who would prosecute? Where do you get the funds to prosecute? Where do you go from there after the prosecution?

The answer to your question is that even if there is a bylaw enforcement officer there, he or she doesn't have the power to do anything. If you do choose to call the RCMP with respect to certain items that may be a bylaw, let's say with respect to trespassing or something like that, they don't feel that they have the jurisdiction to enter into the internal operations of the band. You can't really depend on them.

There's really nowhere to go. With respect to the new legislation, there still will be nowhere to go, and then the enforcement officer will have more power for search and seizure. You're further behind in that aspect.

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: Okay. If we were looking for some clarification in Bill C-7, is it one of the areas that we would want to clarify in terms of amendments to the jurisdictional areas for different levels of law enforcement, from bylaw officers to provincial and federal law enforcement officers?

Ms. Janice Maloney: I think one of the items they had mentioned is to have some type of security in the act itself that these items will be covered and by whom. If it's not finances, would it be some type of partnership with the RCMP or federal Department of Justice where they would prosecute and go forward with this to remove the financial responsibilities from the band?

Again, it is something that would have to go to chief and council to see if they could again go back to consultations on whether that is one area where they feel comfortable in building this partnership, but definitely with something specific on how to go forward with it. This is what you can do, but not how to go forward. It doesn't go that extra step. Include that extra step.

À (1020)

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: Thank you.

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

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

Many of the people who have made representation are as upset about the process as they are about the content of the bill. They have drawn attention to the point that for such broad sweeping changes to the Indian Act, the consultation process wasn't really adequate. In fact, I'm being kind there. Most people said it was an absolute sham. In fact, they had little or no input into what the content of the bill would actually be.

Were they asked for their opinion, they would have chosen completely different issues to deal with. If this is going to be a once-every-50-years opportunity to try to get some redress, these aren't the things they would want to deal with at all.

Has the consultation, or lack of it, come up in your talks? Do you have any comment to make about the nations you represent?

Ms. Janice Maloney: The consultation issue, from what I understand, hasn't been as all-inclusive as it could have been.

Eric Szcheile, who was supposed to be here, did some consultation in our individual communities through CMM. It was quite surprising how many members of our communities knew very little of the legislation. You heard the name and had an idea what it was, but the contents, the purpose, and the direction of the legislation weren't really understood.

Along with some of the other consultations that he had with leadership, there was concern with respect to consultations. Yes, there are definitely issues with respect to that.

Mr. Pat Martin: The point has also been made that clauses in Bill C-7 actually expand the minister's authority. Contrary to the whole idea of self-governance, the minister's authority to intervene is actually enhanced.

Has that been a subject of your talks regarding this bill? I don't see any reference to it in your brief.

Ms. Janice Maloney: There isn't any reference to it in the brief, but when you're looking at the codes themselves, the codes that the leaders have to bring forward within the two years, going back to the funding, can you do them? Can your communities afford to do them? If they can't, obviously you'd fall back on the default codes, giving back the control to the minister, taking it away from our communities.

So, yes, absolutely.

Mr. Pat Martin: Yes, the point has been made that it seems to undermine the very idea of self-governance if the very institutions and codes of governance under which you chose to live are imposed upon you by someone else. It seems contrary to the very name of the bill.

I have no further questions. Thanks.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Dromisky, five minutes.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Thank you.

First of all, thank you very much for your brief.

Ms. Janice Maloney: It's not mine, but thank you.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: In the brief, on the fifth page, in the top paragraph, you say Bill C-7 has built a beautiful new house, but it's sitting on the same troubled foundation. In the presentation that you've made, you identify some of the weaknesses in the foundation.

In your opinion, a legal opinion, if the areas of weakness in the foundation that are included in your paper are rectified and some consensus is built and agreed upon, would that house be much safer, and would it still be a beautiful house?

Ms. Janice Maloney: First, I cannot give you my legal opinion on that question. I guess I would ask, just to go a little bit further, once the house is built, can the foundation be fixed? Can it be fixed sufficiently to support the house?

Again, go back to consultations. What are the concerns--we've already highlighted some of them--and how do we fix them? How is it fixed, and is it fixed strong enough to support the house?

Would that answer your question?

À (1025)

Mr. Stan Dromisky: So if they're fixed, we would have a foundation that would be strong enough to support the house. Is that what you're saying?

Ms. Janice Maloney: No, I didn't say that. I said you'd have to go back to consultations and identify--

Mr. Stan Dromisky: I understand that. I understand the process. I'm talking about the outcome.

Ms. Janice Maloney: Possibly. I'm just guessing.

I don't want to go forward.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: All right. Maybe that isn't a fair question.

The Chair: But I think possibly it's a good answer.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Pardon me, Mr. Chair, but she's answering like a politician. I was asking a lawyer for a definite--

The Chair: The person who is supposed to be here is a lawyer.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Oh, I'm sorry.

Ms. Janice Maloney: He's not here. He's a lawyer for them, and I'm a director in that organization.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: I apologize about that.

That's all I have to ask. I just found that intriguing.

The Chair: Can we go to closing remarks, colleagues?

Ms. Janice Maloney: What I would like to say is with respect to the purpose of the bill, and it has been mentioned before. It is to provide effective tools for governance, for bands to govern more effectively, to enable bands to design and implement their own regimes.

As Eric has explained, it is like bringing forward a new car. Here you have a wonderful new car, but you're not provided the gas or the keys to the car. So even though the bill or the foundation or the form is there, there is nowhere to go with it. It is setting up communities to fail, to fall back, because the funding is not provided. If you don't have the gas to go anywhere and the keys are not there, the control is taken away from the leadership. The overall mode of going forward is not there.

So with respect to that, I'd like to close. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you very much. You did an excellent job. It was short notice for you, I'm sure--

Ms. Janice Maloney: Absolutely.

The Chair: --but you did it as well as any lawyer could.

Ms. Janice Maloney: Thank you.

The Chair: I will take this opportunity to invite anyone in the room who has not presented, or who is not scheduled to present, to make a two-minute spontaneous presentation. I invite Noel Knockwood to do that now. Is Noel here? No.

We will suspend, but we'll stay here until Noel comes back.

À (1026)

À (1051)

The Chair: We will resume proceedings on our public hearings on Bill C-7.

We welcome, from the Native Council of Nova Scotia, Grace Conrad. We had scheduled Lorraine Cook, but I understand Mr. Tim Martin...or is it Chief Tim Martin? Mr. Tim Martin is replacing Lorraine Cook.

We have one hour together. We invite you to make your presentation, which will be followed by questions. Please proceed.

Mr. Tim Martin (As Individual): Thank you very much.

Good morning, honourable members of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources. My name is Tim Martin, and I'm a director on the board of the Native Council of Nova Scotia. We've passed in copies of our presentation to the standing committee.

The Native Council of Nova Scotia is an aboriginal peoples representative organization of the community of Mi'kmaq aboriginal peoples continuing to reside throughout our traditional ancestral homelands in Nova Scotia on displaced Indian Act reserves.

Our off-reserve community of Mi'kmaq aboriginal peoples in Nova Scotia has absolutely no confidence in the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs or its Indian Act-created band councils to protect us against further violations of our human dignity, to advocate for our recognition, our fair and equal treatment, or to end our stereotype and disadvantage.

The Indian Act, by residence distinction alone, has perpetuated violation against the basic human dignity of our off-reserve communities of Mi'kmaq aboriginal peoples in Canada. The divisive and demeaning residency distinctions promulgated under the act of Parliament, the Indian Act, perpetuate denial of our person and the liberty of our people as promised. Indian Act discrimination violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the values of the federation of the peoples of Canada, and the human dignity of aboriginal peoples, for no other reason than our place of residence and our continuum.

The Indian Act has been used to disadvantage, make vulnerable, stereotype, and socially, politically, and economically prejudice our community of Mi'kmaq aboriginal peoples in Nova Scotia and indeed Canada. Our continuum of occupation on our traditional ancestral homelands, not displaced Indian Act-created reserves, is used against us to stereotype us as less aboriginal, less worthy, less deserving, and less in capacity or merit.

We have become the most marginalized people in Canada, for no other reason than our resolve, will, and courage to remain as Mi'kmaq aboriginal people continuing to live on our traditional ancestral homelands. As a community of aboriginal peoples, we live, work, and realize the promise that is Canada for all peoples, not by residence distinction but by our continuum as Mi'kmaq aboriginal people, not under the control, wardship, and direct rule of a minister.

Because we do not ascribe to the long-standing objectives, policies, and colonial ideas of decision-makers of where an Indian belongs and who an Indian is, we will not be subdued, and we will not be put in a place away from you--the reserve--so that decision-makers continue to ignore and deny our being and our worth, a form of prejudicial retribution.

The long-standing view of where we belong in order to be an aboriginal person, according to the Indian Act of Parliament, clearly is outdated and denies the truth. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights, not by their geographic location in Canada or reserve residency, but rather by their humanity as people. As one of our community members expressed: “I have not given up my person as a Mi'kmaq by birth, living on my traditional lands. Why should an act restrict my rights and freedoms and dignity because I do not live on a reserve?”

For our community of Mi'kmaq aboriginal peoples residing off Indian Act-created reserves in Nova Scotia, for Indian Act reserve communities, and for all Canadians, the task now at hand, with the guidance of the Corbiere decision and our history, is to help the members of Parliament to correct the wrong.

With the denial of recognition of the aboriginal peoples of Canada for so long, it will take a lot of effort to achieve. It will take the will and the courage of many Canadians and Parliament to change. But amendments and recognition of our community of off-reserve aboriginal peoples must happen. It is not a matter of voting alone; it is a matter of treatment, of choice, and of our right and duty to safeguard our aboriginal, treaty, and other rights as aboriginal peoples in Canada, now and into the future, for our future generations.

À (1055)

Through review and discussions, the Indian Act is one of the last carry-overs of a bygone colonial era in our history. The Indian Act's core is segregation, putting Indians where they belong, away from the rest of society. The Indian Act does not recognize aboriginal peoples; rather, it creates a registry of Indians and reserve--the government-created list of persons living in created places under the control of government.

The Indian Act, from its very beginning as a consolidation of directives and colonial ordinances and amendments thereto, at its core, set out to put the Indians away in a place where they belong away from settlers and Canadians. There indeed are required significant changes, a significant shift in thinking and decision-making by government--the PCO and DIAND. This is a fact confirmed in the government's “Exploring Options Outcome Summary”, which stated that “Legislative approaches in response to an order could embrace 'narrow' amendments to the Act, but could equally involve new recognition legislation.” This is DIAND's response to the options briefing.

The off-reserve community of Mi'kmaq aboriginal peoples can no longer stand by and allow the government to continue their assault, to continue to place an unequal burden on us, treat us unfairly, minimally, insignificantly, and merely give some token support to our marginalized situation or condition for political optics. The Indian question remains. Dialogue for change must prevent the violation of human dignity and the imposition of disadvantage based on stereotype, social, economic and political prejudice, and vulnerability, promulgated by the dispossessive, segregational Indian Act. The act is wrong and violates every fundamental principle of a democratic state, and that of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

“We've been marking an X since the 1700s. That's not what this is about. It is about my human dignity as a person living as part of a community of people off Indian Act reserves.”

“I was born a free Indian and my family and I suffered all of our lives because of the Indian Act. DIAND-created chiefs and councils only care about their money on their little reserve. I have my own reserve. My home on my traditional land. Where's my help? Where is their recognition for me?” That was stated by one of our community elders.

“We are the aboriginal peoples of Canada living everywhere in Nova Scotia, side by side with others.” That is another viewpoint of our community members.

“I am a Mi'kmaq living on my traditional lands, and I am proud of my history, cultural traditions, language, and world views. Why should I have to be isolated on a reserve or be fenced in to be recognized for what I am?” That was stated by another one of our community members.

“What is so hard about 'recognizing off-reserve aboriginal peoples as communities of aboriginal peoples? There are more community members in this zone than there are on at least two Indian Act reserves. There are more off-reserve aboriginal people in Nova Scotia than on reserve. I vote for my chief and president. Some federal departments recognize us. The Native Council of Nova Scotia is real, and we democratically elect our leader.” This is from another community member.

Our community of Mi'kmaq aboriginal peoples have legal interests and have the constitutional right to exercise our rights as aboriginal peoples in Canada. We have the duty to also protect this interest for our children's future. We have a democratic process of electing our Native Council of Nova Scotia leader. Our council has protected our rights and voice in Canada in an organized manner since 1974. It has not been done by Indian Act-created band chiefs or Indian Act-created band councils of DIAND. In fact, the Indian Act created a new Indian Act band council in Nova Scotia in the 1980s, well after our organization was organized as a voice for our community of Mi'kmaq aboriginal peoples.

The Indian Act is only concerned about numbering Indians and cataloguing reserves. The Indian Act does not recognize aboriginal peoples, our continuum, our history, and our place in the federation of Canada.

As aboriginal peoples, we are human beings with a rich history, culture, tradition, language, and world view. We share and live in peace and friendship side by side with the generations of other peoples who have come to seek out freedom and enjoy the promise of living a life in human dignity. Canada is a country of diverse peoples. That is what gives Canada the strength and the uniqueness in the world. We don't melt people into a form; rather, we celebrate the diversity of peoples throughout Canada.

Á (1100)

The rights of equality of treatment for women, freedom of religion, peaceful assembly, freedom of association, and our many other freedoms in Canada are not restricted or denied by geographic boundaries. Our aboriginal, treaty, and other rights, and our rights and freedoms contained in the Constitution of Canada are not restricted to apply to only Indian Act-created reserves. The courts have declared that what we have always known to be our aboriginal, treaty, other rights, freedoms, and special relationships are real and now enshrined in the Constitution of Canada. These rights and relationships of the aboriginal peoples of Canada apply to the aboriginal peoples of Canada as nations of peoples, nations of aboriginal peoples throughout Canada. Most definitely, they are not restricted to apply only to Indian Act-created band councils and Indian Act-created reserve communities. The Indian Act violates the Constitution of Canada.

No other Canadian, of whatever background, who is born in this great country, Canada, is denied or oppressed or demeaned in human dignity by a single act such as the Indian Act. The Indian Act violates equality for no other reason than where it thinks we should live or who it thinks we are. Our history, culture, language, and world view do not start with a number on a list or on a reserve. We will not end up as a number on a list.

Why must a Mi'kmaq aboriginal person who continues to reside on his or her traditional homelands from time long ago be treated as less aboriginal than an Indian living on an Indian Act reserve? What is the difference as to their aboriginality as human beings, as peoples? Does the stereotypical mindset, or view, or place of residence make an aboriginal person less or more by their place of residence?

Those who have tried to deny our existence and segregate us by dispossession, and to narrow, dishonour, and escape responsibility and obligations promised, have created a stereotypical illusion that the aboriginal peoples of Canada are all but reduced to Indian Act Indians living on Indian Act reserves. That is denial of truth and reality. Decision-makers have to accept the reality. Indian policy continued with the same objective over the past 200 years has failed to achieve its ultimate goal, vanishing people and their nations.

The interests of majorities and minorities alike must be protected in any act of Parliament. Acts of Parliament must conform to the supreme law of Canada, the charter and the Constitution. Democracy demands a free choice, a free vote, a free right to choose representatives for governance. We have a birthright to continue our continuum as Mi'kmaq aboriginal peoples throughout our traditional homelands of Mi'kma'ki.

The early announcements promulgated to aboriginal peoples across Canada by DIAND in an attempt to narrow the Supreme Court decision to be only about voting for a reserve election is, once again, an example of the self-serving interest and paternalistic DIAND interpretation and campaign to circumvent the reasoning and decision espoused by the Supreme Court in the Corbiere case.

The courts have set out tests about how a section, and, indeed, many other sections of the Indian Act, can be found by challenge to violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by demeaning the self-worth, self-respect, and the human dignity of an aboriginal person who does not reside in an Indian Act place for Indians. Segregational and differential treatment violates fundamental constitutional democratic rights and freedoms of Canadians and aboriginal peoples. Specifically, after 1982, Parliament cannot perpetuate a stereotype, disadvantage, vulnerability, social, economic, or political prejudice against an off-reserve aboriginal person or an on-reserve aboriginal person for no other reason than where he or she resides. That is the court's decision and the supreme law of Canada, the Constitution Act of Canada.

The Parliament of Canada has been delivered a very enlightened, forward-thinking opportunity with reasoning and espoused values to be protected. Together with the extensive findings of the report by the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples and with the findings and needs of the different aboriginal peoples affected, Parliament can respond to correct a wrong by enacting an act of Parliament that will advance democracy and the equal respect for all aboriginal peoples in Canada regardless of where they live.

Á (1105)

The Indian Act is too tattered a cloak that does not fit within Canada as it is today. The values, rights, and freedoms guaranteed to all Canadians by our Constitution won't tolerate the Indian Act. The Indian Act creates geographic municipal-type powers of the Indian Act-created chief and the Indian Act-created band councils on Indian Act-created reserves. Indian Act-crafted band lists, and Indian Act registers, and so forth, do not make a community of peoples or give tools for governance.

As it stands today, as in the past, the government has, and continues by its direct rule, control, and wardship of its creations, failed in governing Indian people with the many kinds of tools available to government. Minister Nault is misleading Canadians. Either he does not know the facts and the truth, or his decision-makers continue to deny their failure. The ultimate, horrendously clear failure of Indian policy and the Indian Act in Canada is that of government itself.

A community of persons living in a reserve, at least in Nova Scotia, has adapted to a form of life as a community singularly seen as a responsibility of the federal and provincial government, the Crown.

Another reality in Nova Scotia is that Mi'kmaq aboriginal peoples who continue to reside on their traditional homelands undisplaced by Indian Act-created reserves have continued their community lifestyle as a responsibility of Canada as are all persons in Canada--the Crown. Our community assumes commensurate responsibility for our affairs that are best advanced and/or administered by our own governing council. Our community chief and council are democratically elected to represent and protect our interests and work for our continuum and well-being despite obstacles of directed oppression and denial by DIAND's Indian Act and Indian policy.

What act is required to give our reality recognition today? What tools? There already exists a most paramount act with ample tools. Unfortunately, many legislators and parliamentarians have been sidetracked from seeing it and prefer to deny its existence.

To vote under the Indian Act for an Indian Act chief and Indian Act band council, for a reserve community chief and band council, by an off-reserve aboriginal person would perpetuate DIAND-created “dulocracy” on reserves. A Mi'kmaq aboriginal person who resides on his or her traditional homelands outside an Indian Act-created reserve is part of a community of peoples who have a right to elect their councils, chiefs and council representatives, of the off-reserve communities of Mi'kmaq aboriginal peoples.

A Mi'kmaq aboriginal person on an Indian Act-created reserve and a Mi'kmaq aboriginal person who continues to reside on his or her traditional homelands that were never surrendered do not want to establish dulocracies to replace democracy. A dulocracy simply perpetuates the government Indian policy to domineer, to serve the Indian Act and the minister, and to perpetuate the bygone era of enslaving the liberty of an aboriginal person on an Indian Act reserve and the prejudicial retribution against aboriginal people who continue on the traditional homelands off reserve.

The denial and demeaning of human dignity can be ended with the recognition of a truth. Aboriginal peoples of Canada live everywhere--on reserve and off reserve--as the aboriginal peoples of Canada. Let us together begin to draft an aboriginal peoples recognition act that celebrates, respects, and invites the histories, cultures, traditions, values , languages, and the world view of the aboriginal peoples in Canada.

Á (1110)

Let us help shape Canada through acts of Parliament that acknowledge Canada to be a federation of people. Canada is not a nation of geographic solitudes. An aboriginal peoples recognition act can be drafted and enacted to allow all aboriginal peoples in Canada to share their world views with everyone equal in human dignity.

This would be an aboriginal peoples recognition act where human dignity of the aboriginal person is not demeaned, devalued, or violated because of where he or she lives. We need an aboriginal peoples recognition act that recognizes aboriginal peoples as communities of peoples who live as nations of aboriginal peoples as part of this great federation of the peoples of Canada.

Let us work for an aboriginal peoples recognition act that upholds the values and protects the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the rule of law, our Constitution; an aboriginal peoples recognition act that promotes the growth of democratic institutions of governance, where the dignity and worth of all aboriginal peoples is acknowledged without disadvantage, stereotyping, vulnerability, and social, political, and economic prejudice. Let us end and stop relying on the old colonial view of who an Indian is and where an Indian belongs. Let us stop the assault on the aboriginal peoples of Canada.

Our recommendations may help to begin the process to look at ways in which an act in Parliament will include the aboriginal peoples of Canada within Canada, as distinct societies of peoples, living the promise that is Canada for all Canadians. Canada is a nation of peoples federated together through freedom. The values espoused by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and democratically enshrined in the Constitution of Canadians protects and encourages communities of peoples to democratically elect their representatives at all levels of government institutions, as their choice to protect their democratic freedom.

Our first recommendation is to recognize the Mi'kmaq aboriginal peoples, who continue to reside on their traditional ancestral homelands, as communities of aboriginal peoples in Canada.

Second, recognize and support the off-reserve communities' governance councils, where their representative leaders are elected by the democratic electoral processes to represent their interests.

Third, dismantle the Indian Act, its regulations, and DIAND policies.

Fourth, put an end to decision-makers' old way of thinking about where an Indian person belongs and who an Indian person is.

Fifth, accept that the Native Council of Nova Scotia supports the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples resolution for the abolition of the Indian Act and its replacement for an inclusive aboriginal peoples recognition act.

Sixth, government must recognize and accept the law clearly enunciated in the countless court decisions since 1982. Aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada belong to the direct descendants, heirs, and beneficiaries of the nations of aboriginal peoples in Canada. They are not restricted to or reserved for Indian Act-created registered Indians, Indian Act reserves, or Indian Act-created band councils. All aboriginal peoples governance structures have a duty to protect their rights by the will of their electorate as a people.

Seventh, do not allow the term “aboriginal peoples of Canada”, applying to all aboriginal peoples in Canada, to be violated by a decision-maker who intends to discriminate against aboriginal peoples by virtue or resilience. That is misleading to Canadians, harmful, perpetuates stereotyping and disadvantage, and fuels the information vacuum of denial, truth, and a failed Indian policy in Canada.

Let us not pretend that we can achieve a solution to the long decades of denial, dispossession, oppression, and denial of democratic principles through some DIAND tools for Indian Act-created band council dulocracies. DIAND continues to have control, rule, and wardship, and now with the first nations bill it has a process to enshrine in law dulocracy in our democracy.

No one has the right to undermine that truth or deny the value and importance of democratic freedom. Demeaning and violating the aboriginal peoples of Canada's right to enjoy the freedom of democracy is wrong. Dulocracy is not democracy.

Á (1115)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Does Ms. Conrad have a presentation also?

Chief Grace Conrad (President, Native Council of Nova Scotia): No. There's just the one.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Martin is next for five minutes.

Mr. Pat Martin: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Martin and Chief Conrad.

I don't pretend to understand parts of your brief. I don't know what a dulocracy is, so I guess I'll ask you to explain that a little more in your own terms.

But first I would like to identify or make it clear who we are speaking to. Is the Native Council of Nova Scotia part of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples?

Mr. Tim Martin : Yes. We are the regional affiliate of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples.

Mr. Pat Martin: As such, who in Nova Scotia do you claim as the membership of the Native Council of Nova Scotia?

Mr. Tim Martin : The membership is off-reserve aboriginal peoples in Nova Scotia.

Mr. Pat Martin: Are they status or non-status?

Mr. Tim Martin : They are status, living off reserve, non-status, Métis peoples, and Inuit peoples.

Mr. Pat Martin: I see.

Do you run into conflict sometimes with the Métis National Council, who also claim to represent Métis people living off reserve? Is there a competition for jurisdiction over anyone other than those who are registered status?

Mr. Tim Martin : In our 27-year history, we haven't actually encountered any conflict with the MNC.

Mr. Pat Martin: Okay. What about you, personally? Can I ask you, sir, are you a registered status Indian who is affiliated to one reserve or band?

Mr. Tim Martin : Yes. I've never lived on a federal Indian Act reserve. At my birth because of my parents' listing on an Indian Act reserve, I too was placed on the Indian Act band list.

Á (1120)

Mr. Pat Martin: You are on the list. Do you vote in the elections?

Mr. Tim Martin : No.

Mr. Pat Martin: No.

Mr. Tim Martin : I've never lived in that community. From my perspective, the interests of me, my family, and off-reserve aboriginal members are not the same as those on an Indian Act reserve. Therefore, how can my participation in that community actually help them?

Their understanding of community issues are different from mine, as to how I might understand them from living outside of the reserve. Their acceptance of me as a community member has never been demonstrated to me. Their willingness to accept me, my family, and other off-reserve aboriginal peoples into the realm of the community has never existed.

Mr. Pat Martin: You set up a separate, parallel political structure.

Mr. Tim Martin : Correct.

Mr. Pat Martin: Before we move on to the definition of the term “dulocracy” that you used, I take it from the brief that you agree with most of the leadership across the country, and most Canadians in fact, that the Indian Act is an outdated, colonial, evil document that should be eliminated.

Mr. Tim Martin : Correct.

Mr. Pat Martin: I'm glad. That's a good starting point.

We've heard from the Assembly of First Nations Vice-Chief Rick Simon and Chief Lawrence Paul, other leaders, and previous presentations that they too feel that the First Nations Governance Act is only an extension of the Indian Act. If anything, it in fact makes the Indian Act more offensive because it even expands the minister's powers.

Do you agree with that point of view, not having heard the briefs? Is that your general feeling about this FNGA?

Mr. Tim Martin : By trying to correct something with something that was originally wrong, how would you even start?

That's the reason, in our presentation and from our point of view, we see it as a non-starter. The Indian Act is not the place to start. There has to be brand-new thinking within Canada about where aboriginal peoples fit into this country.

Mr. Pat Martin: Fair enough.

Was there any funding made available to you to go out and do consultations with the people you represent?

Mr. Tim Martin : Yes. In the past, during this entire process of developing legislation under the new Indian Act and Indian Act self-governance, we were given minimal assistance from Indian Affairs to hold consultations.

We held community consultations across the province. We then held regional consultations with the three maritime off-reserve aboriginal peoples councils, namely, the Native Council of Nova Scotia, the New Brunswick Aboriginal Peoples Council, and the Native Council of P.E.I.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Hubbard, you have five minutes.

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

Good morning.

Different leaders have a vision in terms of the future of first nations peoples. Sometimes they talk about assimilation with regard to people who don't live on reserve, where they have their culture, their customs, their way of life, and so forth. They say that the people living off reserve are being assimilated. You talk as if the people who live on reserve are almost incarcerated there because of the act. They feel they can't leave.

With regard to the consultation process, it seems as if a lot of the people who were consulted were living off reserve. That's about half of first nations peoples.

It appears that in terms of Indian Affairs and the yearly budgets, most of the $7 billion that's out there goes to people on reserves to deal with housing and all the other programs. Some of the big concerns that have been brought to us are housing; taxation; health services; and education, especially post-secondary education. What would you see as your vision to deal with those concerns? Could you give us some comments on that.

Á (1125)

Mr. Tim Martin : Over the course of the years, since the inception of the Native Council back in 1974, there have been attempts by government through other government departments outside of the Indian Act or through the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs to assist off-reserve aboriginal peoples. The programs came and went. It was a band-aid attempt to assist those people.

We don't promote the position that Indian Affairs should give us some of what the reserve communities are presently receiving. What we're stating is that it doesn't have to be the Department of Indian Affairs. There are other government departments that provide social and economic programs and services to promote the well-being of Canadians. It doesn't have to be Indian Affairs. We're not trying to downplay the current situations that exist on the reserves throughout Canada. Those situations are deplorable, as the situations for off-reserve aboriginal people are deplorable and need to be rectified.

There has to be some other way. It could be under our perception of a new aboriginal peoples act that addresses the situation that there are reserve-based communities, but that there are also off-reserve communities continuing to live on their traditional ancestral homelands, especially for the aboriginal peoples, the Mi’kmaq peoples, the Maliseet peoples, and the Passamaquoddy peoples on the east coast of Canada, where we have not seceded lands to the federal government or the Crown. Our treaties were based on peace, friendship, and coexistence. Those things need to be recognized. That's basically what we're trying to promote.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: One of the big concerns seems to be the concept of taxation. A homeowner on a reserve doesn't pay property tax. They have certain benefits under the Income Tax Act. With their housing, it's a different concept. You would be under Canada Mortgage, like any other white person in Canada, whereas they are working under a band arrangement with a collective approach to it.

I don't know how many first nations people live here in Halifax. Winnipeg and Toronto have big groups, as well as Regina and other cities. How would your concept work in terms of the Income Tax Act and the property tax act?

The Chair: Sorry, the time's up.

Mr. Martin, for five minutes.

Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Martin, maybe you'll have an opportunity to address Mr. Hubbard's question in your other remarks, but I'd like to stick to some specifics.

How much money did you receive to conduct the consultations throughout the Atlantic region?

Mr. Tim Martin : Approximately $32,000.

Mr. Pat Martin: And roughly how many people in total, of all of the sessions that you held, attended?

Mr. Tim Martin : Four hundred to five hundred people showed up for the consultations.

Mr. Pat Martin: Excellent. That's significant.

Mr. Tim Martin : Yes, plus we have an annual general assembly each year with the Native Council of Nova Scotia, and there are probably another 100 people who attend that and do a presentation.

Á (1130)

Mr. Pat Martin: They did a presentation while you were assembled there. That's fair enough. Thank you.

So we've heard from the elected leadership of the first nations in Nova Scotia that they don't support the FNGA. In fact, they're recommending it be tabled or withdrawn, that we take a step back and move forward, not unlike what you're recommending, in a much broader, thinking-outside-the-box approach--some new thinking, instead of tinkering with the Indian Act.

Mr. Tim Martin : Correct.

Mr. Pat Martin: And now we've heard from you. Not to put words in your mouth, but I think I understand you to say that based on your consultations in three Atlantic provinces--Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island--they are not in support of the FNGA. I think we're sensing some consensus, at least in this region of Canada, that both the on-reserve and off-reserve people find fault with tinkering with the Indian Act as opposed to meaningfully moving forward.

My question is, would you support the recommendation made earlier today that the government withdraw the First Nations Governance Act and start over again with some more meaningful change in the relationship between the federal government and first nations?

Mr. Tim Martin : Quite definitely. That would be a complete change of thought.

We've produced reports from our community. Those types of suggestions are included in those reports. There was a report done individually by our own organization in Nova Scotia, and there was a joint report done between the three aboriginal peoples representative organizations off reserve in the maritime provinces. Those reports have been made available to the federal departments and the committees. They have changed the bill number, but those reports have been submitted.

That would be a very good starting point, but it would all be based on what parameters we are talking about here. Basically, off-reserve aboriginal peoples, whether they be status or non-status, have historically been forgotten by the Indian Act, by the policies implemented by the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs. We have never been included. Some things, such as non-insured health benefits, for status Indians off reserve, yes, those things flow to them.

But in regard to the issue of taxation, I've always paid income tax. I've always paid property taxes. I've always paid HST, GST, whatever it might be. It seems ironic that I pay the taxes to fund the programs offered to status Indians through the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs. We off-reserve aboriginal people are actually subsidizing those costs that are administered by the Department of Indian Affairs by paying our taxes. We have always had to do that, because under the Indian Act, it's only people who live on the reserve who gain the exemption of taxation in some form or another.

Mr. Pat Martin: You've raised some interesting points.

We haven't really heard a great deal from the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples representatives in other provinces in terms of formal presentations. It is interesting for me to learn that you were given some funding to go out there and conduct, as best you could, consultations with the people you represent. And the summary of the input you got is that you do not support the FNGA, because it's an extension of the Indian Act.

Is that fair to say?

Mr. Tim Martin : That's correct.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you very much. That's very useful.

The Chair: Ms. Karetak-Lindell.

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: I'll give you a chance to answer some questions from my colleague Mr. Hubbard, but I'll add to that. In your last response, I think you answered a bit of what I was going to ask.

When you talk about recognition of your rights, what are you talking about as far as everyday things are concerned? I know you talked a bit about non-insured health benefits, but could you add a bit more to what you mean? Which rights do you mean and what would they mean in the day-to-day life of a person who lives off reserve?

Mr. Tim Martin : I guess what it basically boils down to is that we, as off-reserve aboriginal peoples, must receive the same recognition as on-reserve communities. Through the policies, programs, and legislation of the existing non-native society, we've established our own form of governance, such as associations and non-profit organizations. We've created institutions to serve our community members throughout the province.

We don't see why you can only be an aboriginal person if you live within the confines of an Indian Act reserve. Court decisions have been coming out and policy interpretations by governments, such as the recent Marshall decision on the aboriginal or treaty right of Mr. Marshall to sell his eel catch commercially.

Government has taken the position that reserves are the modern manifestation of the aboriginal nations in Canada. The Indian Act has never recognized the nations of aboriginal peoples in Canada. My federal Indian Act status card does not recognize the fact that I am a Mi'kmaq aboriginal person. It says that I am a member of a band created by the Indian Act, with an Indian Act registration number. It does not recognize the fact that there are some 63 nations of aboriginal peoples in this country. The Indian Act has continued to divide these nations. In its present structure, the Indian Act cannot recognize those aboriginal nations; it cannot allow the resurrection, the standing up, or the rising up from the dust or from the smoke of these aboriginal nations across Canada. It doesn't provide for this recognition and doesn't allow it.

We have traditional forms of governance within our Mi'kmaq nation. I cannot speak for the other nations, but we have the Mi'kmaq Grand Council, which has been the traditional form of governance for the Mi'kmaq people since time immemorial. Through the implementation of colonial ordinances and then the Indian Act, it's only been in the last 200 years that these traditional forms of Mi'kmaq government have been downplayed to being almost nothing today. It's only through our own peoples' recognition of these forms of governance that they have remained, be they what they are today—not recognition by government policy or government acts. So we do have traditional forms of governance, but they are not recognized by anybody. They're recognized only within our own communities.

Á (1135)

The Chair: Mr. Martin, for four minutes

Mr. Pat Martin: Not to harp on this, but speaking about money again, the minister said that they've spent between $10 million and $15 million on the consultation process. Yet the $32,000 for conducting consultations in the three Atlantic provinces seems really paltry. We've also learned that his figure to implement the proposed changes in Bill C-7 will be about $110 million a year over five years. Some first nations have even hired the accounting firm of Deloitte & Touche, and they believe it's way low. It will cost far more than that to implement these changes. We could be talking over a billion dollars to make these changes nobody seems to want.

Could you, on behalf of your organization, speak to whether you would feel that money could be better spent to renegotiate the relationship between the federal government and first nations in the country as opposed to imposing on people something they neither want nor seem to need.

Á (1140)

Mr. Tim Martin : We spent millions on the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. We spent millions, and in that royal commission report are hundreds and hundreds of recommendations. The federal government has never formally responded to the royal commission report; it has never given aboriginal peoples the understanding that this is what we are going to move towards. This was a report done by the aboriginal peoples of Canada, funded by the Canadian government, and it talks about a new way of thinking, a new relationship, things that would cost billions to start with.

But from our perspective, if government refuses to recognize that report, refuses to want to develop a new relationship with Canada's aboriginal peoples, it's just another study that's going to be shelved again, okay? Aboriginal peoples are studied to death in Canada with no real formal relationship-building movement on government's part. We feel the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples' recommendations should be put into place and movement should be done by government to implement those recommendations.

Our recommendations mirror the wording in the royal commission's report as to a new way of thinking with regard to that relationship for Canada's aboriginal peoples so we can feel a part of Canada, that we have a place within Canada, and that we are not under the direct rule and control of a minister.

Mr. Pat Martin: You could almost let any volume of your RCAP report fall off the shelf and fall open at any page, and if you implemented those recommendations, you would be going somewhere.

Thank you. You've made a very good point.

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

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Thank you very much.

Looking at your paper as a whole with the basic philosophy behind it all, I think freedom is what you are talking about here. On page 11 you made a point that the interests of minorities and majorities must both be protected by law. That's how laws are formed; a law emerges because there is the need, a need of the majority or a need of minority groups. It must be protected, and that's basically what we've been talking about for the last half-hour.

We've heard with respect to the off-reserve as well as the on-reserve first nations people in the country that their democratic rights are not being recognized, their interests are being ignored, and their needs are being ignored. Should there be a law created either by the first nations or by the federal government, and if so, who should be responsible for that law?

Mr. Tim Martin : When you say first nations, do you mean reserves?

Mr. Stan Dromisky: I'm talking about both.

Mr. Tim Martin : Are you talking about Canada's aboriginal peoples?

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Aboriginal, yes, off and on reserve. I can't ignore those who are off.

I come from Thunder Bay. We don't know whether we have 20,000 off-reserve aboriginals living in Thunder Bay because...we don't know. They are coming in every single day. Multitudes of them are there from Manitoba and all over northwestern Ontario. Don't they have any rights? What rights do they have in relation to all our laws that are in existence right now? Must laws be changed in order to protect their rights, the things you are talking about, as well as the rights of those who are living on reserve?

Mr. Tim Martin : It concerns all of Canada's aboriginal nations; we have to start with that.

We have all types of peoples in Canada, not just aboriginal peoples. We recognize the Chinese community, we recognize the Japanese community, we recognize all those communities, but in Canada, with regard to the aboriginal communities, the communities of Mi'kmaq people aren't formally recognized in any way. The communities of the Haida aren't recognized as being Haida. We're kind of lumped into this pot called Indians. The only thing we recognize is Indians. Our Constitution recognizes the aboriginal peoples of Canada, but the policy-makers and the decision-makers narrow that down to being only status Indians under the Indian Act.

Under the section 91.24 powers it's supposed to be Indians and lands reserved for Indians, but the interpretation by the department is that it's Indians on lands reserved for Indians. That's where they only assume that responsibility, so the people who don't live on what the federal government considers to be Indian land, which is a reserve, aren't recognized by decision-makers or in policies.

There has to be a change in this thinking, because there are aboriginal peoples living throughout Canada, in every village and hamlet, every place in Canada throughout Canada, not just on Indian Act reserves.

Á (1145)

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Would you say that a central authority such as the federal government must create laws in order to protect the rights, rights that have already been established by law in past years in past bills or whatever, of individual minority groups or majority groups?

Mr. Tim Martin : Take this as an example. There are basically two types of Indian Act lists. There's an Indian Act band list, where an Indian--and I'm using that word pejoratively--is placed on a reserve list. Then there is also a general list. That means a status Indian is placed on a list that is not connected to any particular reserve. Yet these aboriginal treaty right decisions that are coming out today are all talking about there being communal-type rights.

That means they're not individual rights. If you are a member of a community, you enjoy the protection of these rights. Well, if you're on a general list because Indian Affairs can't seem to place you on a reserve list, does that mean your aboriginal and treaty rights have evaporated, that you're no longer an aboriginal person enjoying aboriginal and treaty rights?

The Chair: I allowed it to go beyond the four minutes because we were on your time. We are still on your time, and we invite you to make closing remarks.

Mr. Tim Martin : We'd just like to thank you very much for allowing us this time to make this presentation. I found the discussion quite informative, and I'm hoping we've enlightened the standing committee members. You will be having a presentation again from our sister organizations in New Brunswick and in P.E.I., and you will also be getting a presentation made by our regional organization, the Maritime Aboriginal Peoples Council.

With that, I'd like to thank you very much for your time.

The Chair: We want to thank you very much for a very good presentation and for your bringing a new dimension to our debate. I'm sure that reference will be made to your document during our clause-by-clause. Thank you very much.

We will suspend, colleagues, not until 1 o'clock but until 12:45, in case we can convince someone to come earlier.