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

Tuesday, March 25, 2003

0905

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

Mr. Gary Gould (Treaty and Land Claims Advisor, New Brunswick Aboriginal Peoples Council)

The Chair

Mr. Gary Gould

The Chair

Mr. Gary Gould

The Chair

Chief Betty Ann LaVallée, CD (President, New Brunswick Aboriginal Peoples Council)

0910

0915

0920

0925

The Chair

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

Chief Betty Ann LaVallée

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief Betty Ann LaVallée

0930

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief Betty Ann LaVallée

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief Betty Ann LaVallée

Mr. Gary Gould

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

0935

Chief Betty Ann LaVallée

Mr. Pat Martin

Chief Betty Ann LaVallée

Mr. Pat Martin

Chief Betty Ann LaVallée

Mr. Pat Martin

Chief Betty Ann LaVallée

Mr. Pat Martin

Chief Betty Ann LaVallée

Mr. Pat Martin

Chief Betty Ann LaVallée

Mr. Pat Martin

Chief Betty Ann LaVallée

Mr. Pat Martin

Chief Betty Ann LaVallée

Mr. Pat Martin

Chief Betty Ann LaVallée

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.)

Chief Betty Ann LaVallée

Mr. Gary Gould

0940

Mr. Larry Bagnell

Chief Betty Ann LaVallée

Mr. Gary Gould

Mr. Larry Bagnell

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief Betty Ann LaVallée

Mr. Gary Gould

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Gary Gould

0945

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Gary Gould

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Gary Gould

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Gary Gould

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Chief Betty Ann LaVallée

Mr. Pat Martin

Chief Betty Ann LaVallée

Mr. Pat Martin

Chief Betty Ann LaVallée

Mr. Pat Martin

Chief Betty Ann LaVallée

Mr. Pat Martin

Chief Betty Ann LaVallée

The Chair

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

0950

Chief Betty Ann LaVallée

Mr. Gary Gould

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

0955

Mr. Gary Gould

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Gary Gould

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Chief Betty Ann LaVallée

Mr. Pat Martin

Chief Betty Ann LaVallée

Mr. Pat Martin

Chief Betty Ann LaVallée

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.)

1000

The Chair

Chief Betty Ann LaVallée

Mr. Gary Gould

The Chair

1005

Chief Betty Ann LaVallée

The Chair

Mr. Brian Bartibogue (Mawiw Council of First Nations))

1015

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Brian Bartibogue

1020

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Brian Bartibogue

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Brian Bartibogue

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Brian Bartibogue

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Brian Bartibogue

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Brian Bartibogue

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Brian Bartibogue

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

1025

Mr. Brian Bartibogue

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Ronald Gaffney (Mawiw Council of First Nations)

The Chair

Mr. Larry Bagnell

Mr. Brian Bartibogue

Mr. Larry Bagnell

1030

Mr. Brian Bartibogue

Mr. Larry Bagnell

Mr. Brian Bartibogue

Mr. Larry Bagnell

Mr. Brian Bartibogue

Mr. Ronald Gaffney

The Chair

Mr. Brian Bartibogue

1035

The Chair

Ms. Christine Augustine (As Individual)

1040

The Chair

Ms. Christine Augustine

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Ms. Christine Augustine

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Ms. Christine Augustine

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Ms. Christine Augustine

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Christine Augustine

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Christine Augustine

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Christine Augustine

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Christine Augustine

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

1045

The Chair

Mr. Bruce Simon (Member of the Aboriginal Individual Rights Organization, As Individual)

1050

1055

The Chair

Mr. Bruce Simon

The Chair

Mr. Bruce Simon

The Chair

Mr. Bruce Simon

The Chair

Mr. Bruce Simon

The Chair

Ms. Margaret Tusz-King (Animator, Lnapskuk - The Neighbours Project)

1100

1105

The Chair

gkisedtanamoogk (Principal Executive, Wabanaki Nations Cultural Resource Centre)

The Chair

gkisedtanamoogk

1110

The Chair

Mr. Terry Young (Aboriginal Rights Coalition - Atlantic)

The Chair

Chief Jeff Tomah (Woodstock First Nation, Aboriginal Rights Coalition - Atlantic)

The Chair

Chief Jeff Tomah

1115

1120

The Chair

Ms. Juanita Perley (As Individual)

1125

The Chair

Ms. Juanita Perley

The Chair

Ms. Hart Perley (As Individual)

The Chair

Ms. Hart Perley

The Chair

Ms. Juanita Perley

The Chair

Ms. Juanita Perley

1130

The Chair

Mr. Rick Hatchette (As Individual)

The Chair

Mr. Rick Hatchette

The Chair

1135

Mr. Rick Hatchette

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources

NUMBER 053

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, March 25, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0905)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.)): Good morning, everyone. 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 welcome, from the New Brunswick Aboriginal Peoples Council, Chief Betty Ann Lavallée, president; and Mary Gould, treaty and land claims adviser.

Welcome, and good morning. We have one hour together. We will invite you, once you have a few seconds to get organized, to make your presentation, which we hope will be followed by questions and answers.

When I give the members four minutes for a question, it means four minutes for the question and the answer. So hopefully the politicians won't ask long questions that need long answers.

Oh, it's Gary Gould.

Mr. Gary Gould (Treaty and Land Claims Advisor, New Brunswick Aboriginal Peoples Council): Mary was my mother. She was the one who caused all the problems. She was the Maliseet Indian.

The Chair: You're not married, that's for sure. I'll change it on my list here to Gary.

Mr. Gary Gould: I've been called worse.

The Chair: We all have too. I've been in politics for 26 years.

Please begin.

Mr. Gary Gould: You're just a rookie then.

The Chair: Yes.

Chief Betty Ann LaVallée, CD (President, New Brunswick Aboriginal Peoples Council): Good morning. I'm Betty Ann Lavallée, chief of the New Brunswick Aboriginal Peoples Council.

On behalf of the constituency represented by NBAPC, the more than 7,500 off-reserve status and non-status Indians who live in New Brunswick, it's my pleasure to appear here today to present to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources our thoughts, opinions, and recommendations on Bill C-7, the First Nations Governance Act.

Before presenting our brief, allow me, on behalf of our members who are Maliseet, to welcome you to the homeland and traditional territory of the Maliseet Nation, the beautiful Wolastokuk, today known as the Saint John River. Hopefully, you all had an uneventful trip to the homeland of the Maliseet Nation and your return journey to family and loved ones will be safe and pleasant.

Honourable committee members, I now must take a few moments to tell you about NBAPC and our people. This knowledge will go a long way toward understanding our position, not only on Bill C-7 and the Indian Act but also on the numerous issues affecting the interests and rights of Mi'kmaq, Maliseet, and other aboriginal peoples who reside in New Brunswick.

The New Brunswick Aboriginal Peoples Council had its beginnings in 1972 as the New Brunswick Association of Non-Status Indians. Our primary objective when we began was to respond to the demand and need for an effective advocacy voice for persons of Maliseet and Mi'kmaq ancestry who lived off reserve in New Brunswick and were non-status Indians. This group of people included Indian women who had lost status by provisions of the Indian Act, most notably paragraph 12(1)(b); Indian persons who had never lived on reserve and were never registered under the Indian Act; Indian persons who had lost status by voluntary or involuntary enfranchisement; and the descendants of the people listed above.

As we began to make contact with and organize this constituency of people, we became acutely aware of the deplorable social and economic conditions these aboriginal peoples faced and quickly found ourselves dealing with the many problems that affected their daily lives.

Because we were non-status Indians, we were not eligible for assistance from the Department of Indian Affairs and had to depend upon federal and, to a lesser degree, provincial programs of general applicability. We developed a number of mechanisms and service agencies to address the social and economic conditions faced by the forgotten aboriginal people of New Brunswick.

Some of these mechanisms or agencies include Skigin-Elnoog Housing Corporation, which is an aboriginal-owned and -managed non-profit housing society that has built and/or acquired over 1,000 units of social housing for both low-income aboriginal and non-aboriginal families in New Brunswick.

The Wabanaki Development Corporation is an economic development agency of NBAPC that created numerous opportunities for training, employment, and economic development for off-reserve aboriginal people in the province.

On delivery of numerous programs and services on behalf of Human Resources Development Canada, over the last 30 years NBAPC has assisted aboriginal people in obtaining training, educational upgrading, job skills development, and employment.

NBAPC's education assistance program has enabled many low-income aboriginal families and their children to place greater importance on obtaining an education by staying in public schools, recognizing excellence, and assisting off-reserve aboriginal students attend post-secondary institutions.

The Rising Sun Summer Camp, NBAPC's camp facility at Little Lake, New Brunswick, affords low-income aboriginal children an opportunity for a few short weeks each summer to escape the deplorable social and economic conditions under which many of them are forced to live, and the opportunity to meet other aboriginal people and reacquaint themselves with aspects of their aboriginal heritage.

These are just a few of many services, programs, and institutions that NBAPC has delivered or created over the past three decades aimed at those in the off-reserve community of interest who live in New Brunswick.

No understanding of NBAPC, its role, purpose, or our concerns respecting the Indian Act or the topic of aboriginal governance can be fully comprehended unless one is knowledgeable about the demographics of the aboriginal population of New Brunswick. While it would take an enormous amount of time to recite page after page of social, economic, and demographic statistics that tell all too clearly the deplorable conditions under which off-reserve aboriginal peoples live, it is not the purpose of this brief to do so.

However, we will provide the committee with some population statistics and direct you to socio-economic statistics found in numerous studies commissioned by Statistics Canada, Heritage Canada, and volume two of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples final report.

In 1996, the census showed that of the approximately 17,000 persons of aboriginal ancestry resident in the province of New Brunswick, 5,500 identified as living on reserve. Of the remaining 11,500 aboriginal persons, 4,500 were identified as off-reserve status Indians, and 7,000 were non-status and Métis.

From NBAPC's own records and from the data provided by the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, figures show that 32% of all registered Indians from provincial reserves live off reserve, or approximately 3,200 persons. As well, there are another 1,000 non-territorial status Indians and Inuit who make the province of New Brunswick their home.

When we add to these figures the estimated 3,300 non-status Indians, that is, those persons of Mi'kmaq and Maliseet ancestry who are not eligible for registration under the Indian Act, it is clear that 52%, or about 7,500 aboriginals, live off reserve in the province. This figure represents a significant number of aboriginal persons that courts have held as having more than a passing interest in aboriginal issues and substantiates our position that access to programs, services, aboriginal treaty rights, and self-governance must not be based on place of residency or registration under the Indian Act.

Indeed, honourable committee members, for NBAPC, Bill C-7 is not our favoured approach towards dealing with the question of governance. While Bill C-7 addresses a number of matters of significance to bands and band councils and proposes a number of solutions that are long overdue, it is our fear that upon becoming law, Bill C-7 will become the sole avenue for recognizing aboriginal governance and the net effect shall be decades of legal fighting between band members and institutions of band governance.

NBAPC is hopeful that commitments made by the minister to address issues such as band membership and Indian status, nation recognition, and accessibility to programs and services for off-reserve aboriginal peoples will result in consultations and actions aimed at aboriginal peoples residing in urban and rural areas. This is the fastest growing aboriginal group in the country, one that surpasses our on-reserve cousins by a three-to-one margin, and a group that has been and continues to be ignored by government, even though numerous studies and agencies such as the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples have called for positive action on behalf of off-reserve aboriginal people.

The general consensus of our people is that Bill C-7 does little to meaningfully address their concerns regarding governance. Despite this, NBAPC has chosen to participate, simply because the Bill C-7 process is the only avenue open to us to allow us to advance our positions. Hopefully, the many issues we have identified over and over again during these consultations shall find themselves to be objectives of future consultation processes that shall lead to changes in the relationship between Canada and its off-reserve aboriginal peoples.

For the record, and the information of the committee, NBAPC participated in the Corbiere consultations that resulted from the Supreme Court decision of May 20, 1999, and all subsequent consultative phases of the first nations governance initiative.

Over this three-year period of time, the council has held many local, regional, provincial, and interprovincial meetings with the aboriginal peoples of New Brunswick and the Maritimes. As a result of these consultations and information sessions with off-reserve and, in some instances, on-reserve Mi'kmaq and Maliseet peoples, it has become clear that they would prefer to be addressing a legislative package that had as its primary goal the replacement of the Indian Act with an aboriginal peoples act, something along the lines of what RCAP proposed in its final report in 1996.

It is obvious to our people that Bill C-7 fails in this regard and we shall need to wait longer to have justice, recognition, and action on the many matters of importance to off-reserve aboriginal peoples, the largest segment of aboriginal society that continues to remain marginalized and forgotten.

I would like now to present to the committee our concerns and recommendations on several aspects of Bill C-7. In doing so, you are advised that in many instances what I have to say may sound very familiar and may indeed already have been proposed by other groups that have previously appeared before the committee.

Let me assure you that any similarity is not an aboriginal plot, nor is it plagiarism; it is simply a reflection of the fact that the issues facing aboriginal peoples are similar coast to coast, north to south, and result from the history of treatment under the antiquated Indian Act and its colonialism, racism, and assimilationist tactics. Similar histories and treatment across Canada result in similar responses from Mi'kmaq, Maliseet, Cree, Ojibwa, Saulteaux, Dogrib, or Salish peoples.

¿ (0910)

The first concern I would mention is that our participation in the Bill C-7 process must not be seen as an endorsement of the piecemeal approach the minister has chosen to use to reform the Indian Act. As mentioned previously in this brief, NBAPC's preferred approach would be to replace the current Indian Act with an aboriginal peoples act. Often NBAPC found it difficult to limit our discussions to the narrow aspects of legal status and capacity; leadership selection and political accountability; governance structures, powers, and authorities; and financial management and accountability, when there are numerous related issues that impact upon aboriginal peoples and non-status Indians who do not reside on-reserve.

Examples would be the definition of an Indian. Sections 6.1 and 6.2 of the Indian Act dictate who is a member of a band and raise the question of self-determination of first nations. This leads by extension to discussions about the rights of aboriginal people who are currently not eligible for status or band membership under the Indian Act.

Secondly, NBAPC urges the committee to not fall victim to the erroneous and debasing approach of calling bands “first nations”. Tobique, Woodstock, Saint Mary's, Oromocto, Big Cove, Burnt Church, Red Bank, etc., are not first nations. They are significant components of the Mi'kmaq and Maliseet Nations, but to replace the term “bands” found currently in the Indian Act with the term “first nations” will do nothing but undermine the reconstitution of traditional first nations and their governments, which RCAP called for and which NBAPC and numerous other aboriginal groups have been calling for, for over 30 years.

The final issue I would raise at this time is the need for you to recommend to the government action on several matters of an urgent nature that need to be addressed.

The first is the reconstitution of traditional forms of governance that is inclusive of on- and off-reserve first nations people. Governments must establish a formal process that provides for discussions on this matter and that provides equity for non-status first nations people and alternative self-government institutions for those living off reserve.

The second is the need to revisit the band membership and Indian status provisions of the Indian Act to address the ongoing and residual discrimination afforded to non-status Indians and to status Indians living off reserve. Of particular concern to us are subsections 75(1), 75(2), and 77(2).

The last issue pertains to the accessibility to programs, services, and resources for band members living off reserve.

I have several specific recommendations for Bill C-7. The first is the need for a non-derogation clause. Much has been made of the need for protection of existing aboriginal and treaty rights. Over and over again we heard the fear and trepidation that many aboriginal people have about the process being an excuse to take away their rights. A mechanism needs to be found to assure aboriginal people affected by Bill C-7 that the government's intentions are honourable. It is NBAPC's position that the best way to accomplish this is through the use of a non-derogation clause.

NBAPC would recommend to the committee the use of the “for greater certainty” version found in a number of federal statutes:

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 under section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982.

The inclusion of this clause would greatly reduce the fear amongst aboriginal people and would fulfill Minister Nault's commitment given to aboriginal groups that any amendments would not infringe upon existing aboriginal and treaty rights.

Another recommendation we would make relates to the issue of ministerial interference. Subclause 10(3) of Bill C-7 enables the minister to take remedial action if the financial health of a band compromises delivery of essential programs and services, if the band fails to provide audited financial statements within allotted timeframes of 120 days after year end, and if the auditor denies or offers an adverse opinion on financial statements. These powers of intervention are wide and undermine the minister's statements that he wishes that his and the government's role be diminished in band affairs.

¿ (0915)

Additionally, lack of clarity raises concerns over the treaty entitlements available to off-reserve band members, which are constitutionally protected treaty rights. The NBAPC urges the committee to clearly define what moneys are subject to ministerial interference and to protect the treaty rights of off-reserve band members, who should not be penalized for actions by on-reserve governance structures they have little control over.

Three, there is a need for an independent institution ombudsman. Over the past decade, aboriginal peoples have been calling for the creation of an independent institution ombudsman to handle a number of tasks. These include: acting as an ombudsman to deal with complaints by band members against band leadership or administration; handling election appeals; facilitating good governance practices; and limiting ministerial interference in internal band affairs.

The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples recommended the establishment of such an institution. Presently, Bill C-7 provides neither an ombudsman nor an independent institution. Instead, the bill proposes the establishment of a band group, or an elder council, to handle these matters.

It's NBAPC's position that having 630-plus groups will lead to more problems than they would solve, and that family relationships would make most, if not all, of these local band resolution groups ineffective. Therefore, NBAPC recommends the establishment of a national ombudsman office, which has equal representation and staffing of on- and off-reserve band members.

Four, regarding inequity in the process of leadership selection, currently bands can use the provisions under section 74 of the Indian Act or they can operate under custom rules for the selection of their leadership. As written, Bill C-7 does not allow section 74 bands the ability to switch to custom processes, while custom bands are given the option of continuing their custom practice. This creates an inequality between section 74 bands and custom bands and needs to be addressed. NBAPC therefore recommends that section 74 bands be given the option of adopting custom leadership selection processes, as well as those provided by section 74.

Five, with regard to the search and seizure powers in Bill C-7, the bill proposes the establishment of band enforcement officers and proposes giving these band officials the powers of search, seizure, and rights of passage. While NBAPC recognizes that under the current Indian Act major problems exist regarding enforcement of band bylaws, we have raised concerns about the scope and potential abuse of these broad powers of search and seizure. Additionally, many questions remain as to the policing authority of these officials, and there is the fear that these officials would become a goon squad for the band council. Also, there is a need for clarity about the powers of these officers.

We would recommend not proceeding with this section of Bill C-7 at this point in time. Instead, we would suggest that existing police forces be given clearer direction as to their powers and roles in the handling of on-reserve police and enforcement matters.

Six, regarding the Corbiere balancing issue, the Supreme Court went to great lengths in its 1999 decision on Corbiere to raise the issue of the need to balance the interests of on- and off-reserve band members when it comes to voting. Bill C-7 has not adequately addressed this subject in any real way, save for stating that bands may generally address the balancing question in establishing election codes.

The complexity of this balancing requires that clear guidance be given to meet the direction given by the Supreme Court. As a reminder, the following quote is taken from the Corbiere decision: “What is necessary is a system that recognizes non-residents' important place in the band community”, and “the voting regime cannot, as it presently does, completely deny non-resident band members participation in the electoral system of representation. Nor can that participation be minimal, insignificant or merely token.”

¿ (0920)

Bill C-7 provides neither direction nor clarity on the balancing question and avoids dealing with other discrimination provisions of the Indian Act that are as repugnant as subsection 77(1), to which the Corbiere decision addressed itself.

Subsections 75(1) and 75(2) still require individual band members to reside on reserve to be nominated for council or to move or second nominations, and subsection 77(2) remains intact, with its offensive wording “is ordinarily resident” on the reserve.

As a result, NBAPC urges the committee to recommend to the minister that more direction be given to bands to develop clear guidelines and criteria as to how the interests of on- and off-reserve band members are to be balanced. Failure to do so would only lead to future charter challenges.

I would like to thank the committee for hearing my views, and I shall attempt to answer any questions you may have.

¿ (0925)

The Chair: Thank you very much for an excellent presentation.

Before we go to questions, I have a few comments. One of them is that clause 52 says, under Bill C-7, sections 74 to 80 will be repealed. So that will respond to one area you touched.

You will not be accused of participating in a plot of information, because you're one of very, very few presentations that address the issue of Bill C-7. Most of the presentations didn't talk about the bill we're out to hear about.

No one needs to apologize for criticizing Bill C-7. If we wanted to hear just good things, we could do that from Ottawa. We're on the road to hear the people who oppose Bill C-7 and why, and you have contributed dearly.

For the benefit of members, we also have a problem with the non-derogation clause. I feel personally that the government--the minister, the Prime Minister, and cabinet--have a responsibility to come clean on non-derogation and make it clear, because we can't go through this every time there's a piece of legislation coming out.

The minister made it clear that there's no intent of doing these things, but as a government, I think they have to make it clear somewhere. If they don't, I suspect this committee is going to have to do it for them. So I would hope that someone in the PMO is listening to this so that we clear this thing up once and for all, because I can understand your concerns. Somebody needs to take a stand and make it public; otherwise the committee will have to do it.

I don't speak for the committee. I speak for myself.

Mr. Vellacott, five minutes.

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

Thank you, Betty Ann, for being with us, and Gary as well.

I guess that has come up more than a few times, about the many different band communities across the nation--each one is not a nation.

I'm wondering about a couple of things on that, and then I have some other questions. So I'll just throw this out, and you can respond at a point when I get to some other questions as well.

Do you think there would be a real meeting of the minds and a quick coming together on that, or are you going to have some dispute about this reconstituting and what those original “first nations” are? Maybe you could just keep that in mind, if you care to respond to that, because 600-plus....

I think that's what spooks the Canadian public, quite frankly, in that 600 self-governing entities across the country is a little hard for them to comprehend. We've kind of made all these preparations across the country, if you will, and maybe 60, or whatever the numbers would be across the country, might be a little more within the realm of doable.

My other question here, though, is in terms of the benefits that should come to off-reserve Indians. Are you of the view that those should come directly from the government, or still to their local band or “first nations”, or would there be a way to...?

Numbers have suggested that, that you actually have leadership less in a position to hold it over people at the time of elections, and so on. But if the benefits for off-reserve, and even on-reserve, came directly to individuals and were handled in that way instead.... Do you have a comment on that, Betty Ann?

Chief Betty Ann LaVallée: I'd just like to clarify. You're saying issue a cheque directly to the individual?

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I'm not sure what you're saying. Because you have problems in terms of getting the benefits, are you still saying they should go through your first nation community to you, or would you rather they just come directly to you, if you're living in a city or off reserve?

Chief Betty Ann LaVallée: Personally--this is my personal feeling--my interests have been served by the organization of which I currently am leader. I feel there have to be, as we stated in our brief, other mechanisms or governance structures recognized by the federal government to service your off-reserve aboriginal constituency.

We've done it well for over 30 years. From where we began to where we're at today, we've done it very well. We're very open. We provide audited financial statements each year.

¿ (0930)

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Okay. I think I know where you're going with this then. So you're saying that as an umbrella group representing a whole variety of first nations, the pot of money should come in your direction and you divvy it up or disseminate it. Is that your position?

Chief Betty Ann LaVallée: I would say that is one option. I think the real thing here is choice, the right for aboriginal peoples to choose, just like a Canadian citizen chooses.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: So who has the choice? Does the individual say, I want it to come through the aboriginal council, through my first nation, or directly? Who really is the one making the choice?

Chief Betty Ann LaVallée: I believe it should be the individual making the choice. I should have the right to choose who is my representative body.

Mr. Gary Gould: There is also the issue of non-territorial first nations people. In New Brunswick, in the brief, we talk about 1,000 aboriginal people from other first nations--Cree, Saulteaux, Inuit--who live in New Brunswick. As it is now, our organization provides services and programs to those individual people. It's extremely difficult for those individuals to have to, in many instances, travel thousands of miles to go back to their home community to access programs--education and health, whatever the services happen to be.

The other thing that people and parliamentarians have to get a handle on is, with Bill C-31, many of the people who now have status have never had a relationship with the community to which their name is attached, and whether we want to accept it or not, many of these people have not been readily accepted back into their communities, although they are Indians under the current Indian Act. They are receiving second-class treatment as status and treaty Indians across this country. Government should address that.

In the reconstitution of the traditional first nations, we believe people have to recognize that the Maliseet Nation is comprised of peoples who live on reserve, who live off reserve, both status or non-status--and in the future, some of those non-status may well be added to the list, if we believe what the minister and the government have told us, that they're going to look at those sections--and there need to be vehicles of governance developed to provide programs and services to those particular people.

Does it mean--

The Chair: Thank you very much. That's five minutes.

Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Chief Lavallée, for a very useful brief. Your brief is helpful to us in that it makes general comments, but it also does have specific recommendations to the bill.

In contrast to the chair, it's my personal view that all the briefs we've had deal specifically with Bill C-7, most of them in great detail. Many of them do match, virtually item for item, the ones you cited, and I think there is a view, on the government side, at least, that there has been sort of a cross-country pooling of the minds to stop this bill. But I think the reason they cite the same clauses is because those clauses are fundamentally flawed and they glare at you. They jump off the page at you--to any objective person reading the bill.

I think you've made very good recommendations, and you're in very good company, in that right across this country there is overwhelming opposition to the bill and to those clauses that you cite--specifically those and others.

The point has been made that it undermines the very idea of self-governance to impose codes of governance on people. Surely an aspect of self-governance is the right to design institutions that are suitable to your own customs, traditions, and so on, and Bill C-7 falls short of that in virtually every area.

With that preface, I'd ask you, going back to the start of your brief, about the consultation process. The minister, in his opening remarks--he was the first witness at these hearings--said this bill has been written in direct consultation with 10,000 aboriginal people from across the country--in other words, implying that the consultation process was such that people had real input into what showed up in the bill. Do you feel you had an opportunity to actually say what should go into Bill C-7?

¿ (0935)

Chief Betty Ann LaVallée: We held community meetings right across the province. Our last one actually was in Dalhousie this past Sunday. I know, because I spent 18 hours on the road driving. We also did one commission, and there were two books published from that.

We have an umbrella group here in the Maritimes, where we're able to get together--

Mr. Pat Martin: We actually heard from them yesterday and we have copies of the book.

Chief Betty Ann LaVallée: Well, that was us.

Mr. Pat Martin: Except that nothing in those books has found its way into Bill C-7, because Bill C-7 was already crafted by the time you did your consultation....

Chief Betty Ann LaVallée: Fairly well, but at the national level we also fed into our national organization, the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. We had a seat on the joint ministerial advisory group, and as the representative for New Brunswick, I was kept briefed of every meeting. I had copies of the minutes of every meeting, which were given to Gary, our treaty adviser for NBAPC, who was elected by the people to perform that function.

Mr. Pat Martin: In other words, what you see in Bill C-7 are the things you asked for in the consultation process.

Chief Betty Ann LaVallée: Not all of them.

Mr. Pat Martin: Any of them?

Chief Betty Ann LaVallée: Some of them are there, but not to the point that we would have liked to have seen.

One of our issues is, why are we doing this in a piecemeal fashion? If we're going to replace the Indian Act, let's replace the Indian Act. Let's do--

Mr. Pat Martin: But the Indian Act has nothing to do with non-status people currently, so the leadership of first nations doesn't want anything to do with Bill C-7.

Chief Betty Ann LaVallée: The leadership might not--

Mr. Pat Martin: The leadership, on behalf of the people they represent, have universally condemned Bill C-7 for being offensive, colonial--

Chief Betty Ann LaVallée: Well, they might be--

Mr. Pat Martin: Paternalistic.

Chief Betty Ann LaVallée: I have to disagree there because there are some reserve leaders who have participated.

Mr. Pat Martin: We haven't seen this yet.

Chief Betty Ann LaVallée: Well, there are some first nations-elected chiefs who have participated in this process. At our meeting at Dalhousie University on Sunday, there were first nations peoples from the Papineau reserve who attended. We have had first nations people from the various reserves attend our meetings. We've left them wide open. So I do know personally, for a fact, that there have been on-reserve people participating.

Mr. Pat Martin: Okay.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Bagnell.

Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): Thank you very much for coming and welcoming us to your territory, mahsi cho, and for your excellent presentation.

I think this should be used as a guide for others doing presentations to various government committees, because you have outlined specific elements in the bill and you have given a good background and some great suggestions for changes. It's been very helpful.

I'm glad you confirmed that you were consulted and you had some ideas input. And you were very diplomatic in that Bill C-7 was not your favourite approach. Those are probably the most diplomatic words we've had to suggest that.

I ask this for my own information, because a lot of the discussion is related to off reserve, and of course conditions on reserve are not perfect either. We have lots of work to do in the primary conditions of Indian people both on and off reserve. Would you say they're both as bad, as a matter of fact, or does one group even have worse conditions, on average, than the other, in general?

Chief Betty Ann LaVallée: Well, I do believe that the latest UN human rights report compared the socio-economic conditions of off-reserve aboriginal peoples residing in Canada to those of a third world country. So I'd say we're probably not too far apart.

Mr. Gary Gould: Your own health department recently came out with a report about the health conditions of off-reserve aboriginal peoples being as bad, if not worse, than on-reserve peoples. Your own departmental institutions are coming forward with these statistics.

There is evidence, and we often find ourselves caught in this dilemma. Conditions are so bad at the reserve, we recognize that, but that should not be used as an excuse to ignore and continue to marginalize off-reserve band members and non-status Indians.

¿ (0940)

Mr. Larry Bagnell: I agree 100%. I'm glad the government really seems to be making a lot more effort to work on a strategy, because off-reserve people fall between the cracks a lot of the time for programs and services.

I used to be president of a friendship centre. We tried to work on that, but there was only a small amount we could do, and there's lots to be done.

This is related to your recommendation on redress, which I think is something very important that somehow needs to be covered. My understanding of your recommendation is you were going to replace individual redress mechanisms in each band or first nation with a national ombudsman's office.

That seems awfully distant, especially from the far reaches of the country, to an individual member who has a problem. Do you think that would solve the problem in the redress?

Chief Betty Ann LaVallée: I think if you don't have something that's independent, separate from the community, as we stated in our brief, you're going to end up pitting family against family. We're already dealing with those issues.

And that's why our nation is so convoluted; it's so diverse, it's so divided on off-reserve, non-status. It's because the Indian Act has consistently pitted Indian person against Indian person.

Mr. Gary Gould: You could make that national institution more regional by simply having under its umbrella regional or even tribal resolution mechanisms. We don't think 633 individual institutions is the answer in any way, shape, or form. It will simply lead to further problems.

We tend to support what RCAP suggested, and we've analysed the situations because we're dealing with our relatives all the time who are coming to us about their concerns at the communities. We call for a national institution, but it could very easily be national with subunits underneath it.

Mr. Larry Bagnell: I think what you're saying makes more sense because there's a balance. If it's not self-government, it's someone from Ottawa again telling you what to do and reversing the decision. You want people in some way to be in control of their lives, even in the redress mechanism. I think what you're saying makes sense.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you. We can now have a three-minute round.

Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I guess the other difficult question is on the Corbiere decision. I don't really have a full understanding. I get different responses depending on who I'm asking in terms of the flow of funds, based on Bill C-31 coming into different first nations communities and whether they get funding or not. Some say it's not occurring.

The other question is with respect to Corbiere. Do you think it's a fairly easy, clean kind of thing to deal with in terms of off reserve? Would a couple of sentences or so resolve it, cut it clean, and deal with it thereafter?

Chief Betty Ann LaVallée: I'll refer the question to Mr. Gould, who was the facilitator for the Corbiere discussion.

Mr. Gary Gould: One of the problems that I guess has been very obvious in the Bill C-7 process is that the government has totally avoided dealing with the balancing issue. The Supreme Court of Canada really avoided dealing with it. There is a lot of verbiage in there about how it needs to be recognized and how you do it.

Some of the proposals, I think, are an affront to democracy. To suggest a special seat for off-reserve band members, where in some instances 70% of the band members, such as the band that I'm affiliated with, live off reserve, is tokenism. There needs to be real democratic change.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Can I interject here, Gary?

Obviously, where there are certain laws or bylaws that pertain only to those who are living on reserve, does the off-reserve person really care?

I don't know what other comparative scenarios we would have in the country, federally, provincially, or whatever.

Do you know what I'm saying there? You don't even have an interest in some of those things.

Mr. Gary Gould: Those are very simplistic issues. Do you think an off-reserve person doesn't have an interest about dogs on the reserve if they visit relatives on the reserve and there's a pack of dogs?

Let's go to Saint Mary's and we'll deal with it across the river.

Off-reserve people are very much concerned about some of the community interest issues. I do agree with you that there are a lot of things that off-reserve people aren't going to participate in because they don't live there.

¿ (0945)

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: That is by choice.

Mr. Gary Gould: It is by choice, but in some situations it's not by choice. The jobs simply aren't there. There isn't the infrastructure, housing, and services to allow all band members to reside there.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Are you saying we should let them all be involved in every decision?

Mr. Gary Gould: No. I'm saying that you can very clearly come up with a proposal for issues that are directly local governance matters.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Yes.

Mr. Gary Gould: For on-reserve people you can have a double majority. Those concepts have been advanced in constitutional discussions for dealing with language issues and a number of other issues.

There can be mechanisms, but the bill and the government have been seriously avoiding this whole issue. I believe we're going to be heading back to court on charter challenges.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Martin, you have three minutes.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you.

You make the point in your brief that:

The general consensus of our people is that Bill C-7 does little to meaningfully address their concerns regarding governance. Despite this NBAPC has chosen to participate simply because the Bill C-7 process is the only avenue open to us to allow us to advance our positions.

You've used this as a forum, and it's a legitimate thing to do. When the Indian Act is opened up for amendment, it's opened up completely. You're perfectly within your rights to advance your positions now.

It was the stated position yesterday in testimony from Nova Scotia counterparts--is it the NSAP?

Chief Betty Ann LaVallée: It's the NCNS.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you. There was also the Maritime...?

Chief Betty Ann LaVallée: The Maritime Aboriginal Peoples Council.

Mr. Pat Martin: Yes.

Both asked for the bill to be withdrawn because they believe it's flawed, and to step back and start again, based on the recommendations of the royal commission, with something more meaningful to change the relationship between the government and first nations aboriginal people across the country.

Would it be your position that the government should withdraw Bill C-7 and start forward with a more comprehensive bill that would meet the issues you've raised?

Chief Betty Ann LaVallée: I think we articulated it very well in our presentation. Instead of a piecemeal approach, we would like to see a fully comprehensive overhaul of the Indian Act and have it changed to an Aboriginal Peoples Act that respects and recognizes the diverse aboriginal community that lives in Canada.

We're no different from the non-aboriginal community. We all have different views. We all have different ideologies. We're all different.

Mr. Pat Martin: The point has been made, but I only have a minute.

Dealing specifically with Bill C-7, do you want it withdrawn?

Chief Betty Ann LaVallée: If they're not going to go with our preferred method, no. It's better to work step by step. We'll get there. It might take another 125 years, but I'd rather see us try to do something proactive.

Mr. Pat Martin: The government is going to use that, because you guys took money to do these consultations when the AFN wouldn't take their money. So they're going to use your brief and say, well, some aboriginal people like this bill. The position is going to be used by the government to promote Bill C-7. Are you aware of that?

Chief Betty Ann LaVallée: Mr. Martin, I'm quite aware of how government operates. I live under a regime that has ignored me for 100-some-odd years, that took away my Indian-ness because I had the audacity to serve my country. I'm quite aware of a regime that fails to recognize my son, who's serving his country. I'm quite aware of what happens to people like me.

Now, will I be accused of being a sellout? Oh yes, I've been accused of that many times before. Does that hurt my feelings? No. For the simple fact that if you don't participate, you have nothing to bitch about.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Just for the record, everyone around this table knows this committee doesn't have the option of withdrawing this bill. The most we can do is vote against the 59 clauses. And one clause says there will be a minimum of one meeting per year, so it's pretty hard to vote against that one.

We don't have that option and everybody knows that.

Ms. Karetak-Lindell.

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Thank you very much for your brief.

I'm trying to play devil's advocate, because I'm an aboriginal Canadian too. People use different arguments to forward different causes, but I just want your view in a couple of sections here.

On the search and seizure powers, we have heard some arguments that the powers are more than what the average municipal, provincial, and federal governments have. Yet in the Corbiere section, you were asking that you be allowed to vote even if you're not normally on reserve. But municipal, provincial, and federal governments state that we have to reside in the area we're voting in. I see that as being more.

I'm trying to get an idea of when we decide we want more and when we decide we want less.

Another very quick question is on the ombudsman. You haven't quite stated how you would like that person to be selected.

Can you get all that in, in whatever time you have left?

¿ (0950)

Chief Betty Ann LaVallée: For the powers of peace officers or protection officers, I personally would not want someone in the middle of the night--because I dare to disagree with the chief and voice my opinions in public--to kick down my door under a false assumption. No aboriginal person--or Canadian citizen, for that matter--would tolerate that type of behaviour. Therefore, I believe these individuals must be governed by a strict code of ethics that is comparable or equal to what is found in mainstream Canada.

As for the ombudsman, I believe that's an issue...as we've said, we've left that question wide open. It's required, and it's an issue that needs to be discussed with the national aboriginal leadership and the Government of Canada.

It falls right into line with the honour of the Crown, due consultation. That is something that could be done by a committee. It's been done in the past, and maybe it could be done with input from human rights.

As for the balancing act of on- and off-reserve band members, that's a hard one. I don't know. That's a difficult one for me.

Mr. Gary Gould: I do have some problems. Right now under the legislation, since Corbiere, non-Canadians can vote in band elections. Did you know that? If you're a band member who has never set foot in this country and you were born in the United States, you're added to the band list and you can vote. You don't have to be a Canadian citizen to vote in a band election under the current Indian Act, and there are many across this country who do that. They receive a ballot through the mail and they are asked to vote for their uncle, their cousin, or whoever.

We believe that the people--when I say “the people”, I'm not talking about the band administration, I'm talking about the first nations people--should be sitting down together and designing their own electoral systems. That's not happening, and it's not likely to happen because we know the parameters of this session.

We hope the minister will look at those sections and will provide an opportunity for further clarification and further amendments down the road. We have all kinds of recommendations we could advance on those, but there is no sense.... Well, we have a saying down here in the east, a Newfoundland saying, actually: pee into the wind and it's going to blow back into your face. There is no sense in doing that. It's just a messy job.

We would like to deal with what's on the table. We don't think there's enough on the table, and we think the government needs to be told that. I'm sure most aboriginal groups are saying that.

Are we opposed to the bill? It would be easier for us to come here and say, kill the bill, kill the bill. But it's not going to do anything. It is not going to do one thing except have another aboriginal group get a headline in the newspaper--“Aboriginal group calls for killing the bill”--because that's all the media wants to report on. The media is not going to talk about positive change. That's just the way it is, and we recognize that.

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Vellacott, you have two minutes.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: You make the point here that if in fact we delete or do not proceed with that section of the bill on the broad search and seizure powers, you suggest that existing police forces be given clear direction as to their powers and roles in handling on-reserve policing and enforcement matters.

I would be curious as to specific examples or instances, because I understand that the RCMP find their hands really quite tied. If people have a complaint about the chief and council, the RCMP will send them back to the chief and council. Well, that doesn't really work in most instances. It's a bit like nailing jello to a wall. I agree with you on this, but how are you going to more specifically direct them when as it is you don't have a lot of powers there and you're in a situation sometimes where it's also going to create real conflict between families and so on?

Could you give a specific comment as to what you mean, how more clear direction could be given, and in what manner?

¿ (0955)

Mr. Gary Gould: The reality is that what you're proposing is even more dangerous than using trained police officers. What you're proposing is to create an institution that is going to be given policing powers without any parameters.

Our concern, and we're hearing this from people living on the reserve, is that they have a great deal of fear about these appointed individuals without a clear policing background and where there is not a clear tie into the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There are certain provisions under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms dealing with search and seizure and that sort of stuff.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I have a concern. I didn't propose this, but I have a big concern with that part of the bill. You're saying go to the RCMP, because that's often their--

Mr. Gary Gould: Or go to the local police who are involved with some of the reserves and give them a clear mandate. This is one of the issues: do they or don't they have a mandate? That needs to be clarified at this juncture.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

First of all, if someone were to break your door down in the middle of the night, it would be illegal because living quarters are exempt from this power.

Then you say that it is being done without parameters, but if the parameters are all put in, the government is accused of deciding everything for the first nations people. Yet if the government allows the first nations to develop these parameters, they're accused of putting forth legislation without parameters. I can imagine that for them it must be a problem, but I would rather see it developed by the people affected by it than by cabinet. I'll just mention that.

Mr. Martin, you have two minutes.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you.

One of the provisions that has been brought to our attention as one that people can't live by or tolerate is subclause 9(3), which states “A band's financial statements shall be made publicly available”. That's not only to band members, that's to any person who asks. It also includes the financial statements of some business you might have going on, on your reserve that's in direct competition with another business down the road. So your competition could walk into your band office and demand to see the financial statements of your private for-profit company. Do you have any views on that clause?

Chief Betty Ann LaVallée: At NBAPC, for any funding we have or receive we have an independent auditor who's elected by the people and who reports directly to the people. Each year he does an audited financial statement and presents it to the community at an annual general meeting. It is then sent to the various government departments, and it has to meet the Treasury Board guidelines as outlined by the federal government.

Do I have a problem with that? Not in the least. I do it every year.

Mr. Pat Martin: So you find no problem with some stranger being able to walk into your band office and demand to see the financial statements of the business you run, the manufacturing plant or the fish processing plant, or with your direct competition seeing your--

Chief Betty Ann LaVallée: Not in the least.

Mr. Pat Martin: You're clearly a booster of this legislation, so you've done your job well by...and I'm sure your comments will be used by the government in imposing this bill on first nations people. Congratulations.

Chief Betty Ann LaVallée: Thank you.

Mr. Pat Martin: I have no further questions.

The Chair: If I had an award to give, I'd give it to you.

Mr. Pat Martin: You've finally found somebody who likes the bill, Chair.

The Chair: He's been giving me a hard time for four weeks.

Mr. Pat Martin: You had to wait for four weeks to finally find somebody who wants this bill.

The Chair: It's not a national offence to be in favour of legislation. It shouldn't upset anybody.

Mr. Hubbard.

Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Martin has done his best to point out all across the country why his party is not in favour of this bill. Really, his interpretation of that clause in terms of accountability is not the way most members of this committee see that part of the bill, not any more than for any company.

Aliant, for example, the big telephone company in Atlantic Canada, doesn't present all its records, but it does present an annual report for its business--but that's beside the point.

I'd like to congratulate the two of you for a very good presentation, a very forceful one. Mr. Martin probably sees what a very forceful presentation it is.

This comment is for the record and concerns the people you represent. We've met before. I know that here in New Brunswick a good number of people who belong to your council were disenfranchised back in 1940 or 1950, because if you were living off reserve, you often weren't counted as part of being the so-called status Indian group of Canada. That has been a long-term issue here in New Brunswick, Mr. Chair.

Under other parts of the Indian Act people have lost their so-called status. I know it's been a point this group has made very forcefully over the years, and I think it's one that we, the Canadian nation, will eventually have to address in terms of status. Why should someone who voted in a federal election in 1950 lose their Indian status?

In the part remaining, maybe Betty Ann would like to comment briefly in terms of the problems some of her people have had, the people she represents.

À (1000)

The Chair: There's no part left; you took the full two minutes.

Chief Lavallée, you have three minutes for closing remarks. You may address that or you may use them for your own--

Chief Betty Ann LaVallée: I'll address that. In my case I was a member of the Canadian Armed Forces for 17 years, CD and Queen's Jubilee. My father was 38 and a half years before me, and at one point he and I crossed each other.

He was in conflicts, in Korea, and in Egypt during the Six-Day War, and prior to him there was my grandfather. My son is now serving with 3 RCR in Petawawa, and he's getting ready to go on his third or fourth tour to Afghanistan in August.

We have a long history of military achievement. Because of that service to our country, because we honoured our treaty obligations to stand shoulder to shoulder with our colonial friends, we have been penalized. We were stripped of our identity as status Indians.

For me it was a double whammy. I married a non-aboriginal man. Therefore, even though my son would be considered a treaty Indian once treaties are settled, under the current Indian Act he's not eligible to be registered, although my brother's children would be. Sexism and racism are still alive and well in Canada when it comes to the Indian Act.

As for participating with Bill C-7, as I said, NBAPC has always taken a stand. You can't complain and whine and bitch about your situation or your lot in life if, when you're given the opportunity to try to influence change for the better, you don't participate. It's too easy to sit back and complain. It takes guts, courage, and fortitude to stand up and shout out loud, this is the situation, this is how we think, and we'd better serve ourselves as aboriginal peoples. Then you go out and you do the very best you can.

Will we always get what we want? No, and we know that. Will we be accused of being sellouts? Oh, definitely, but I have broad shoulders. If I didn't, my people wouldn't have elected me to serve their interests.

I'll give Gary the other few minutes to sum up.

Mr. Gary Gould: I don't have much more to add to what Betty Ann has said, other than the fact that the council has had a tradition of participation in constitutional processes and amendments. It is simply because when a door is opened, you put your foot through it. You get your leg through the door and then you get your torso and your head through the door. It's easier to go through an open door than a closed door.

We don't agree with the bill, not at all. We're going to take the minister up on his commitment that there will be future amendments that will deal with issues of concern to our people. The proof of the pudding will be the history. You can rest assured that should this government, or indeed any government that replaces it, backtrack on its promises, they will hear from us. We believe we can make changes together.

Our cousins on the reserves have a different agenda. There are no two ways about it. Many of them will appear and be opposed to the legislation. They can speak for themselves.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We all realize, and we've been reminded this morning, that much needs to be done. This is only a small part of the work that government needs to do.

I can say to you that the people you represent are fortunate to have you. Your presentation will be very helpful when we go to clause-by-clause consideration. I am sure it will be referred to. We thank you very much.

À (1005)

Chief Betty Ann LaVallée: Thank you.

The Chair: I now invite Ronald Gaffney and Brian Bartibogue from the Mawiw Council of First Nations to come to the table. We welcome you. We have 30 minutes together. We invite you to make your presentation, and we hope you will allow some time for questions. Please proceed.

Mr. Brian Bartibogue (Mawiw Council of First Nations)):

I'd like to welcome the honourable members of the standing committee, special guests and observers, and ladies and gentlemen.

Thank you for your invitation and the opportunity you have provided to the Mi'kmaq and Maliseet constituents of the Mawiw Council to impart their views on Bill C-7, the First Nations Governance Act.

If there is one impression we would ask the standing committee to take away from this presentation, it's the extreme distaste and dissatisfaction the Mi'kmaq and Maliseet people of New Brunswick have for and with this piece of legislation. This is not what our people want, this is not what our people need, and this is not what they were promised.

Mi'kmaq and Maliseet each see the bill as a new threat to their culture and their distinct society status. It appears we have entered into the final stages of an effort to ensure that our people never exercise their inherent powers of government. The bill is a band-aid solution at best and an insult to first nations at worst. It merely demonstrates that on the issue of Indian governance, Canada is now bankrupt in terms of its approach.

In 1983, the Prime Minister of Canada, Pierre E. Trudeau, tabled a federal proposal at the constitutional conference on first nations rights, calling for inclusion in a constitutional:

charter of rights of the aboriginal peoples...the institutions of various forms of aboriginal government within the constitution of Canada and under the laws of Canada to meet the respective needs of their communities....

In 1984, Parliament introduced an act related to self-government for Indian nations, Bill C-52, enumerating expansive powers for Indian governments.

In 1992, the Charlottetown Accord recognized Indian governments as “one of the three orders of government in Canada”.

In 1996, Bill S-9, an act providing for self-government by the first nations of Canada, was introduced to Canada's Senate. It attempted to provide first nations with extensive enumerated legislative powers, ranging from first nations control over the lands, property, and money of first nations, and the licensing and control over businesses, health care, marriage, social and welfare matters, child adoption and custody, education, and the administration of justice, among other things.

The preamble to the act stated:

....it is proper, expedient and in the public interest that such nations, bodies or tribes of Indians be free to administer, regulate and manage their own communities, lands and resources and exercise the appropriate tools of governance over their lands and peoples.

How far have we fallen? Canada has moved from a position in the mid-1980s and early 1990s of being prepared to recognize the inherent aspects of jurisdictional sovereignty in the first nations, representing a third order of government in Canada, to a place now where Bill C-7 can be introduced and considered.

This new bill is simply aimed at silencing a few vocal critics who claim that the Indian people, forced to live under the straitjacket of the Indian Act, must now become even more accountable for their actions and the funds provided by Parliament.

After a good deal of internal consultation and debate, it is the considered opinion of the vast majority of Mi'kmaq and Maliseet constituents of the Mawiw communities that Bill C-7, the First Nations Governance Act, has very little to do with governance per se.

It represents a corporate model for first nations to follow in the hope that by emulating the decision-making mechanisms of a profit-driven business, first nations will be able to solve their problems by integrating--or should I say assimilating--into the economic mainstream. The bill points to a framework for Indian governments that is neither required nor requested by first nations citizens themselves.

The consultation process leading up to the introduction of the bill was shunned by most first nations and their representative organizations. The bill was not drafted in concert with our leadership or assemblies.

Take, for instance, part 1 of Bill C-7 relating to the band governance, specifically paragraph 5(1)(b) and its minimum requirements for leadership selection codes. The bill provides for a band to adopt a code:

establishing the mode of selection of the members of the council, as long as a majority of them are at least elected

What are we opening ourselves up to?

If there were indications and guidelines suggesting this provision was aimed at incorporating individuals of recognized traditional or hereditary standing into the process of council decision-making, it might be viewed more positively by first nations. But clearly, this broad requirement steps back from the principles of representative democracy and invites the likes of accountants, lawyers, and co-managers to acquire open-ended unelected representation on first nations council. We may yet see the day when non-Indian people hold the key swing-vote positions on first nations governing bodies.

I am sure you are aware of the criticisms of clause 5 of the bill, which forces first nations communities to either use or lose their custom-based rules for leadership selection. They must either adopt a new mandate code embracing the customs within a two-year period or face imposition of very different selection rules.

This approach is indicative of Bill C-7's lack of understanding and sensitivity to the tradition-based first nations governments. Many of the customs relied on by first nations in the area for leadership selection are derived from the oral tradition and longstanding aboriginal practices. While in the view of some non-Indians custom election rules may seem vague or imprecise, they are nevertheless a link with a first nation's past, a cherished understanding that a community may not wish to change, add to, or codify just to satisfy someone's notion of clarity.

I am sure that during your travels it has been pointed out to you that the word “chief” has somehow disappeared from these substantive amendments to the Indian Act. You can search Bill C-7 high and low to see what role has been assigned to our chiefs in this new model for Indian governance. It is clear that there is no assigned role. The word “chief” and the office it describes is not an aspect of the new bill. Why has it been omitted?

The recognition of chiefs was originally incorporated into the Indian Act because one of the noticeable features of most tribal governments was their reliance on chiefs, sachems, sagamores, or headmen to represent the tribe and its views with non-Indians. This is a strong link between that particular office and our past. Now, in a major amendment to the first nations leadership selection process, the continuity of the executive office is left to the whims of those persons drafting our selection codes.

Of course, parliamentarians may say that selection codes will be of the people, by the people, and for the people. If first nations people oppose the idea of appointed council members, or if they want a chief leading their Indian government, they will not approve of any code that states otherwise. Let us remember that while the Indian Act will still, in the first instance, require a majority vote of all electors of the band to approve any surrender of reserve lands, Bill C-7 in subclause 4(2) provides that a band can adopt a new leadership selection code with as little as 25% of the eligible voters being involved.

Second, let us remember that Bill C-7 was not developed by or with first nations. It is alien. Our people are not taking ownership of the bill. Whenever there is a lack of community ownership, the unscrupulous people tend to take advantage of this lack of commitment. The cutthroat style of politics fostered and developed under the Indian Act system will lead some individuals to attempt to manipulate the new bill's provisions in order to protect the status quo, to deny those people now on the margins an opportunity to ever influence the levers of power.

These leadership selection codes in no way resemble first nations constitutions. As set out in clause 4 of the bill, it will be “the council of the band”, not the people, who develop these codes. The aim of some councils may be to create and secure quick passage of codes that merely preserve a special political and economic interest in first nations communities. This process is guaranteed to further divide many reserve communities. This is what can happen when Canada begins telling first nations what is best for them.

We could go on and on about the negative aspects of Bill C-7. For instance, who is going to pay the enormous cost of drafting codes and their implementation? Will this be another Bill C-31, or Indian Act membership reinstatement bill, where the bulk of the costs and fallout from the imposed process rest with Indian communities for years to come?

It is a simple inescapable truth that this bill is Canada's, not ours. It is a generic model for government to standardize procedures and to provide window dressing for accountability.

Canada could secure real financial accountability and procedural fairness from first nations governments right now under existing Indian Act and financial agreements. If it is simply a case of enforcing the rules that exist now, no new legislation is required. Instead, we foresee a situation where Canada will enact a new bill designed to fail because those individuals who would not comply with the old rules will simply manipulate the new ones.

True compliance must go hand in hand with a sense of obligation, responsibility, and ownership. It cannot be legislated in this fashion.

Maliseet and Mi'kmaq people are resisting Bill C-7, not so much because of its provisions, but because they perceive it as foreign and as being imposed upon them against their collective will. Hopefully, this will not be the case.

There is an alternative. Canada could actually do what it says it was prepared to do in the mid 1980s and 1990s: to recognize first nations governments; retain inherent sovereign powers of government over fundamental aspects of day-to-day relationship affecting the peoples; and invest in resources in an effort to have first nations develop their own grassroots and culturally based constitutions within mutually agreed upon parameters.

We have a tradition of consensus building and of law-making. So in the words of Bill S-9, allow us to be free to administer, regulate and manage our own communities, lands and resources. Some will claim that Bill C-7 is only an interim solution on the road to real inherent Indian government. In New Brunswick, we are all too familiar with interim harvesting and fishing agreements, which last year after year after year with no end in sight.

We believe that Bill C-7 is only the first step in the effort to refocus the attention of our peoples away from the rights and treaty agenda and towards a false promise of economic development through integration into the mainstream. The effort will fail, but the pain and frustration it will cause will be enormous. The bill represents a new chapter in the history of assimilation. We see it as violating human rights, with the bill attempting to lower first nations administrations to meet Canada's expectations.

It doesn't have to be this way; Canada does not have to tell us what to do. Through mechanisms like Bill C-7, we can have a true partnership and accommodation if we unblock our ears and listen to and learn from one another.

With that, I will respectfully submit our submission.

À (1015)

The Chair: Thank you very much for an excellent presentation and for speaking on Bill C-7. We appreciate this, because it is the help we have come to seek. You have been very helpful.

Mr. Vellacott, a four-minute round.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: As you look at Bill C-7, am I to understand that you would rather just stay with the Indian Act and the status quo and the act's current problems, rather than go with anything at all until you get a full-fledged self-government agreement?

Mr. Brian Bartibogue: There are obviously problems with the status quo. If the status quo were appropriate or satisfactory, we wouldn't see the problems and conflicts across this country that we do.

I honestly think that we are our own heroes and have our own solutions. As first nations people, we understand the position we are in, and at any point in time if we are allowed to develop our own destiny, I see our people taking that opportunity.

À (1020)

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Doesn't that have a lot to do with self-government agreements, and so on? What do you do until you are at the point where there are such agreements? Do you just want to stay with the Indian Act?

Mr. Brian Bartibogue: At this point in time, Bill C-7 is so offensive that if the only alternative left to us is to stay with the Indian Act, then I think we'd have to take it.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Do most of the nations or groups you represent have leadership selection codes written out that would probably surpass the requirements of Bill C-7?

Mr. Brian Bartibogue: Are you speaking about the tribal council or the individual communities?

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: The individual communities.

Mr. Brian Bartibogue: The individual communities are operating under the Indian Act right now with their leadership selection, but we also have an existing traditional government that's never been terminated. It still exists.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Some parts of the country have actually gone ahead and taken the initiative, even I think on the local level. They probably wrestle with the department in terms of the use or the application of that. But you're saying your tribal council has put into place leadership selection codes or something comparable. The financial and administrative aspects are covered by the bill? You already have that all covered off?

Mr. Brian Bartibogue: To clarify, I just talked to our legal counsel to make sure that all three first nations are operating currently under the Indian Act and the codes that it provides. But we have many first nations people who are very well capable of developing those types of codes if requested by chief and council.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: They haven't yet, but you're saying, given the permission, they would proceed readily along that course.

There's nothing at all of redeeming value or virtue in Bill C-7, from your point of view then, Brian?

Mr. Brian Bartibogue: If I can be very straightforward, no. It is not ours. It is alien. At some point in time the relationship has to stop being paternalistic and ask us what do we desire. How are we as people going to design our future? How are we going to overcome our problems? This is not being done.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Were you involved in the consultations or any--

Mr. Brian Bartibogue: No. Many people boycotted that because they didn't find it was approached correctly. We weren't in the development aspects of that so there were more people protesting than participating, and I think you guys are very well aware of that reality right across the country.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Martin, four minutes.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Bartibogue and Mr. Gaffney, for your brief.

You raise a lot of good points, and as I said earlier, you're in good company. You're right. Right across the country we've been hearing overwhelming opposition to this bill, for many of the reasons you've cited. So thank you for being so clear and for stating some of those things.

I think you know that the government has been pushing this bill under the guise of it being about accountability. They started with a misinformation campaign, trying to imply, or trying to set the stage, that so many first nations are so badly managed that it justifies this heavy-handed imposition.

But the secondary objective that seems to be percolating to the surface now is that they're really trying to get away from their fiduciary responsibilities, which they've realized, and been told by the courts now, are very onerous. They're going to have to make accommodation within our lifetimes, and they would rather pass that fiduciary obligation on to bands and councils.

You raised the issue of the costs. The cost of the consultation alone, which was a sham and a mockery by all accounts, was $10 million to $15 million. The cost of imposing this set of rules on people who neither want it nor need it is going to be $110 million a year, and we believe that estimate is low.

It could be the next gun registry boondoggle in terms of how do you impose something people don't want on 633 first nations. It's going to be a disaster.

I'd ask you, would you agree with the predominant theme we've been hearing, that Bill C-7 should be withdrawn and scrapped and this committee should recommend that the government withdraw it and start over again, based perhaps on the recommendations of the royal commission, if we want to revisit the relationship between first nations and the Government of Canada?

À (1025)

Mr. Brian Bartibogue: It is my opinion that that would be a very good start, but there would have to be absolutely a mechanism that's very inclusive and inviting to aboriginal people.

I've been watching this on CPAC, and it is tough. I hope there's no personal offence, but to watch a lot of non-native people decide my people's fate once again angers me. It frustrates me. I really make a lot of efforts not to harbour resentment and hatred, because it seems to be a pattern in this country since those boats landed that you know what's best.

Mr. Pat Martin: I don't blame you.

One of the witnesses we had wrote the seminal Harvard study on economic development within first nations communities, and he made the point that governance codes without sovereignty are about as likely to succeed as sovereignty would be without good governance. In other words, we have the cart before the horse.

So if we get back to the implementation of the treaties and true self-governance, then you can see codes of governance being developed by sovereign nations.

Would you agree with that assessment as the stage in which this should be happening?

Mr. Ronald Gaffney (Mawiw Council of First Nations): Certainly, yes, I would agree with your comments, but at the same time there is actually an alternative process as well. It's only getting off the ground right now. There is a good deal of caution with respect to entertaining it, but that's a process being led by the chief negotiator, Tom Molloy, on treaty implementation.

First nations are much more comfortable operating from a base of their rights and treaties than they are trying to fit under imposed solutions through legislation that they take no ownership of. So they want to work from the point of inherent sovereignty, of controlling their own destiny, of protecting their rights and treaties, rather than being told this is the framework for governance, even if they are being told at the same time it's only an interim solution, because they don't truly believe that. That's what the community feedback is indicating.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Bagnell, four minutes.

Mr. Larry Bagnell: Thank you, and thank you, witnesses, for coming today.

I certainly agree with your section here that says no new law or old law is going to work unless you have the buy-in of the people.

I have two questions. The first question is related to an item on page 8, at about the fourth line, where you say, “to deny those people now on the margins an opportunity to influence the levers of power”. I think one of the important aspects looked at in Bill C-7 is redress for people on the margins, and clause 11 and to a lesser extent clauses 41 and 42 attempt to deal with this.

Do you have any comments or suggestions on the redress mechanism in the bill, which would give these people on the margins a chance of appeal?

Mr. Brian Bartibogue: I think you should withdraw the legislation. I hate to get into “let's change this wording, let's change that wording”. It is alien to us. I hate to repeat the entire speech, but if I have to I will. I don't want to get into the debate on specific sections within a bill that is alien to us.

Mr. Larry Bagnell: I'll ask one more question, because our purpose here is Bill C-7 and getting input on the various aspects of it that the committee would be voting on.

On page 5 you note the wording in the bill of “establishing the mode of selection of the members of the council, as long as a majority of them at least are elected”, and then you go on with reasons why that's not acceptable. I want to try to understand what you are saying here.

Is the fact that some of the people are not elected how non first nations accountants, lawyers, and co-managers would get on council, or is the fact that some are not elected how hereditary persons would get on council? I want to make sure I understand your point here.

À (1030)

Mr. Brian Bartibogue: The point is I think we are asking a question about what we are opening ourselves up to here, and there's a door open with no clear distinction about how to get on council within this. Because of how Indian Affairs has implemented third party and co-management to many first nations, I think it invites the suspicion that quite possibly there might be non first nations people sitting on council, making decisions for first nations people, and who very well could not understand the strife that first nations people had to endure at the hands of the Crown. Then there is the possibility of having swing votes in an elected position.

So it is vague enough that it's scary. There's the possibility that it could very well end up that there are non-native people sitting on Indian councils.

Mr. Larry Bagnell: Even though the band would have to choose the method. I understand your point there. What about--

Mr. Brian Bartibogue: What if it's implemented?

Mr. Larry Bagnell: But you would still want a provision that some first nations or bands use where there are hereditary positions. They are members, but they are hereditary. They are not elected; they are hereditary.

Mr. Brian Bartibogue: Do you want to take that one, Ron?

Mr. Ronald Gaffney: If the act was moving more in that direction, I think first nations would view it a bit more positively. But these types of provisions are included and they weren't part of the campaign surrounding the introduction of the bill. First nations don't see what the utility of it is. They would like to develop constitutional governments for their tribal groupings, or first nations communities, and not be guessing as to what is going on here.

You indicated that the band would decide really what that meant through the selection code process. But it's not the band. The council of the band draws up the leadership selection code and puts it to the community. There's a vote that can be as little as 25% of the eligible voters participating in that.

So there's a great deal of fear and uncertainty as to what lies behind the philosophy of the bill. And where there is that degree of uncertainty, they don't want to move forward over something as important as leadership selection processes.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We have three minutes for closing remarks. We invite you to do that now.

Mr. Brian Bartibogue: I'm only going to take a minute and maybe Ron could take the other minute.

I think the overwhelming statement...it's more on a personal note for me. I know the honourable member Charles Hubbard is familiar with me and the conflicts I've been associated with.

There are symptoms to every problem. There's a problem that exists in Canada with the aboriginal people. There is no doubt. With situations such as Oka, Gustafson Lake, Ipperwash, and Burnt Church, there's a problem.

Many first nations people in this country do not perceive themselves to be Canadians, or New Brunswickers or whatever province they come from. So there's a philosophical divide that exists. I myself do not perceive myself as being Canadian. My family do not perceive themselves to be Canadian. It is difficult to be part of a country that continually treats aboriginal peoples as adversaries.

I personally feel that you are not my heroes and you are not my saviours. I will find that among my own people. I am hoping that some day Canada will see the true asset that aboriginal people are in this country and approach them in an honest and fair way, as true partners in the development and the future of this country. Maybe then we can call ourselves Canadian. But until then we will reluctantly be dragged along. That's how I personally feel.

Thank you.

À (1035)

The Chair: Thank you very much for an excellent presentation.

Now we invite, as an individual, Christine Augustine, please. We have 10 minutes together. We invite you to make your presentation, which hopefully will be followed by questions, if there is time. If there is not, we understand.

Ms. Christine Augustine (As Individual): Good morning.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the committee today. My name is Christine Augustine. I am a member of the Eel Ground First Nation of New Brunswick.

I am here today to voice my concerns as an aboriginal woman, a mother, and a community activist. This past year I have had the opportunity to learn about the fears and hopes of aboriginal women throughout the province while serving as an associate on aboriginal issues for the New Brunswick Advisory Council on the Status of Women.

My remarks today will focus on four areas of concern related to the First Nations Governance Act that has been proposed.

My first concern involves the consultation process. I do not believe this phase was sufficiently inclusive of aboriginal women, elders, and children in New Brunswick. According to the consultation meeting summaries posted on your website, only about 80 women and 70 men attended the community meetings held in New Brunswick during 2001.

It is difficult to connect and unify the women of our 15 first nations. Our population is relatively small and scattered in reserves and off-reserve communities in all parts of the province. Because many of the aboriginal women I spoke to in the past month were not aware of the new legislation, I decided to organize an information session at the Red Sky Aboriginal Institute in the Miramichi this past January.

First nations women from around the province said they needed to know more about how the proposed legislation would affect their lives and those of their children. Part of the problem lies with the failure of our band leaders to provide adequate information on the proposed changes. At the root of the problem is the marginalized position of women in our aboriginal community.

For aboriginal women in New Brunswick, injustice is like an onion with many layers. One of the first layers of discrimination is women's lack of influence in the running of their community. Women are largely excluded from decision-making positions. There is currently only one known female chief in New Brunswick and few female band councillors. In many first nations communities there is only one woman on the band council.

It is very difficult for these women to make their voices heard. Many grassroots women keep quiet because of fear or a feeling of powerlessness. The high incidence of physical and sexual violence in our community also takes a toll on women's self-esteem.

As for Bill C-7 itself, I am concerned that the proposed amendments to the act may jeopardize the constitutional rights of aboriginal peoples and make women even more vulnerable to abuses of power.

There are many problems with the existing band governments, including the lack of accountability, but the federal government should use existing powers to hold our leaders to a higher standard rather than introducing dramatic changes to the Indian Act. In my view, Bill C-7 includes provisions that could be used to reinforce the subordinate situation of women in our aboriginal communities.

The low level of popular support required for approval of the band governance codes is a major cause for concern. The proposed legislation allows bands to design their own community codes on leadership selection, financial management, accountability, and administration of government. However, approval of these important instruments requires only a favourable vote from at least 26% of all eligible voters. Women's interests could be completely ignored in the development of rules for elections, control of finances, and reporting to people.

I fear the governance codes may include discriminatory provisions that worsen women's positions within aboriginal communities. Band councillors and chiefs could continue to pursue resource-based concerns and neglect pressing social problems such as violence, poverty, housing, child care, and education.

Finally, I am troubled by the sweeping powers given to band enforcement officers under Bill C-7. First nations are empowered to appoint band office enforcement officers to police violations of band laws. These officers could issue notices of fines, enter and inspect any on-reserve property, and would have powers of search and seizure. As the National Aboriginal Women's Association has pointed out, these overly wide powers open the way for abuse. Women, children, and elders could become more vulnerable than ever to intimidation and violence.

I urge you to consider amendments to the First Nations Governance Act in light of the concerns I have expressed today. My biggest fear is that the act as currently drafted will do nothing to improve our situation and may well make it worse. The legislation must provide some safeguards to ensure the interests of aboriginal women, children, and elders are represented in band government and protected from entrenched, male-dominated power structures.

À (1040)

Moreover, Bill C-7 will do little to address the many layers of injustice experienced by first nations women. This past January the United Nations committee responsible for the review of Canada's report on compliance with the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women pointed to the persistent, systematic discrimination faced by aboriginal women in all aspects of their lives.

The committee insisted Canada must introduce effective, proactive measures to ensure that aboriginal women can exercise their rights in all areas. It has also expressed concern that the first Nations Governance Act fails to address discriminatory legal provisions under other acts, including matrimonial, property rights, status, and band member questions.

The advancement of aboriginal communities depends on the full and equal participation of women in public affairs. Substantial change in band governance is long overdue, but it must take into account the disadvantaged situation of women in our communities. We need checks and balances on the power of our leaders.

We also need special measures to combat patriarchal attitudes and practices and to bolster the role of women in the decision-making process.

Thank you.

The Chair: We thank you very much.

There's not enough time for a complete round, unless members are willing to do one minute. One minute means the question and the answer, so if they take 45 seconds for the question, that really doesn't leave you much time, does it?

Ms. Christine Augustine: No.

The Chair: I hope they're listening.

Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Do you think it's a good idea for aboriginal people, men and women, to be brought under the full application of the Canadian Human Rights Act?

Ms. Christine Augustine: Yes, I do agree with that part. However, in mainstream society, that is not a useful tool. As you very well know, it's very time consuming, so it would not be a very useful tool for our communities at this time.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Would you rather have a national ombudsman who would have powers to address issues that come up on reserves and elsewhere?

Ms. Christine Augustine: I guess I would prefer something like that, something with more teeth.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Right.

Ms. Christine Augustine: I don't know if that makes sense, but for advocacy for most women in our communities, we need something with more power.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Thank you.

The Chair: That's wonderful. In 42 seconds we had two questions and two answers.

We're almost finished our consultation. We're catching on.

Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: First of all, I'm missing pages 1, 2, and 4 of your presentation; all I have is page 3. I'd like to get a copy of it. I liked your brief very much.

Ms. Christine Augustine: No problem.

Mr. Pat Martin: Secondly, have you run this brief by the New Brunswick status of women?

Ms. Christine Augustine: Yes, they have assisted me with it.

Mr. Pat Martin: So they are in concurrence with your points of view?

Ms. Christine Augustine: Yes.

Mr. Pat Martin: In its current form, would you recommend that Bill C-7 be withdrawn, or that this committee recommend that the government withdraws Bill C-7?

Ms. Christine Augustine: I don't know if I could go as far as saying that was agreed in my consultation with the women.

However, as I mentioned, we do need checks and balances with our leaders to assist with some of these layers of inequalities in our communities.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you.

The Chair: If you leave that document with the clerk, we will have it translated and distributed to everyone.

Mr. Hubbard, for one minute.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Mr. Chair, I only wish to thank Christine for coming. She certainly did the status of women group and the province of New Brunswick honour in presenting a very concise and detailed report in 10 minutes. I would like to thank her for that.

It was certainly very well done, Christine.

À (1045)

The Chair: Thank you very much for an excellent presentation.

I now invite Mr. Bruce Simon, a member of the Aboriginal Rights Coalition, to make a presentation.

Welcome, sir. We have 10 minutes together, and I would ask you to make your presentation.

Mr. Bruce Simon (Member of the Aboriginal Individual Rights Organization, As Individual): I am from Big Cove, New Brunswick, and I am a proud member of the Mi'kmaq First Nation.

Members of the committee and the parties associated with the committee, let me first explain that I'm not a lawyer or a politician but a first nations person who does not want to be stripped of his existence or have any of my rights or treaties abrogated or derogated.

Many of our first nations people across Canada oppose Bill C-7. Many of my people oppose the passing of such bills and legislation that will affect the ways of our lives and that are more of a political genocide.

Bill C-7 and other agreements passed lately infringe or abrogate on the rights and treaties, as did part of the 1969 white paper, which was supposed to be scrapped. It still seems to be in the process of the government, which argued aboriginal and treaty rights were irrelevant in today's society.

I get the idea it's political genocide and cultural damage. A political leader made a statement on television just after the salmon war in the early 1980s that in order to have claims in the lands in the country you must have a language or a culture, and it went on in that fashion. For a political leader to demean the first nations on television shows the position that some people strongly influence the government to act upon against the aboriginals of the country.

Our people have expressed their opposition or acts of defiance against legislation and bills that kept them from providing for their families and nations. They also opposed the manner that was taken to obtain permission to pass such a process by giving permission to only a few to benefit or prosper from the agreement, thus infringing on the rights of the other first nations people.

Looking at the Big Cove tract, the first nations were forbidden to fish, and yet other strips were being sold, mind you, to people from outside, in the United States.

The Burnt Church dispute was another dispute where the aboriginals were run over by Canadian fishery boats.

There was the Oka crisis, where the aboriginals refused to have their burial grounds expanded on by a golf course, resulting in eventual attack by the army.

And there was the Indian residential school, where the children were molested, punished severely, and where experiments like the offshoots of the paper clip project were performed on them like experimental rats.

Some of you guys will probably have permission to get into that. That's a highly classified document.

The refusal of their access to resources, which many of our people relied on to support their families, resulted in low self-esteem and suicide for many of our first nations people on and off reserve. We know for a fact that suicide went up because of low self-esteem.

Our people have fears of opposing the decisions made without their consent...in fear of Bill C-36. The bill was passed in the Parliament of 2001. Just after that, on November 17, they came down to this Secwepemc Territory, and a witness said the RCMP went “out of control in attempting to arrest a youth that was wearing camouflage clothing”. A further witness said, “They used pepper spray and brutally threw a young woman to the ground.”

À (1050)

There are more cases of that sort, more or less giving us the characteristics of a terrorist.

If band leaders make an agreement with the Government of Canada without the consent of the members of the reserve, it is considered valid. When the people of the reserve oppose it the band overrides our request.

For example, the logging and fishing agreement was made without the full consent of the band leaders. A marked majority of us opposed it, stating that it was going to affect our way of life and a select few would only benefit from this agreement.

Even though a majority of the band members are present and vote against these decisions, it makes no difference.

In Bill C-7 subclause 4(2) states:

A proposed code is adopted if it is in writing and is approved, in a vote conducted by the council in accordance with the regulations, by a majority of the eligible voters of the band who participate in the vote, and if those who vote to approve it constitute more than twenty-five per cent of all eligible voters.

To me, this only gives a few people a chance to vote on it.

It regulates us and only a few will make that decision. All they have to do is rally a few together. It is what they would call a gateway to a conflict of interest, and this is very serious for our people.

Also, when we get into it further along there is the evidence...changes made without the consent of the majority of people can still be hidden until the appeal date has passed. This leaves the first nations people in an extreme takeover position, and they can be railroaded by an outside government. For too many years I have watched our people being railroaded over some of the issues.

This is also evident in the membership code, in section 6 of the Indian Act, where non-natives are given status without having one ounce of first nations blood in them and where others with first nations blood are stripped of their status.

In part 2 of the governance bill it gives the band a right to have control of the disposing of rights and properties. This indeed can be very dangerous if placed under the secret vote of subclause 4(2) of the governance bill. In the law-making powers, regulating business activities can infringe upon our rights to a moderate living. That is in subclauses 16(1) and (2).

Even in the event of a conflict between a law made under this clause and an act of Parliament or legislation made under an act of Parliament or the act, regulations prevail to the extent of conflict. Where does it put us? Do we oppose a decision? The Parliament of Canada says, well, we have a chance to implement this bill.

This government bill will be a gateway for the downfall of our people.

À (1055)

The Chair: It's been 10 minutes. I will give you an extra minute.

Mr. Bruce Simon: Basically, what I'll try to give you is the last part of it.

The Chair: I will say, sir, that if you leave the document with the clerk, it will be translated and distributed to all members.

Mr. Bruce Simon: Bill C-7 seems to work against the first nations in several ways.

What I'm trying to say is if you've been given a gift of blankets that were purposely contaminated by the British in 1763, you tend to be very cautious of what's given to you. At this time the government says, we're your friend; we'll honour your treaties. The government still has to live up to the fiduciary responsibility and the situation with regard to the Vanderpeet case. Where does the Crown have relations with their first nations people?

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Bruce Simon: I know I only had a few minutes.

The Chair: That was an excellent presentation. If you choose to leave the document, we'll make sure that everybody gets it.

Mr. Bruce Simon: I think everybody has a copy, though.

The Chair: I tend to listen, rather than follow documents. We do have it.

Thank you very much.

I now invite to the table Margaret Tusz-King, animator, from Lnapskuk-The Neighbour's Project.

Welcome. We have 10 minutes. I invite you to make your presentation.

Ms. Margaret Tusz-King (Animator, Lnapskuk - The Neighbours Project): Thank you.

Good morning. I am Margaret Tusz-King and I work with the project called Lnapskuk-The Neighbours Project. It's a regional, community-based partnership between a non-native and a native organization, and it is largely funded by the churches, such as the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, the United Church of Canada, and the Canadian Religious Conference of the Atlantic Region. I am the non-native half of the staff of the project, and I welcome the opportunity to be here today to offer you our perspective regarding Bill C-7.

The goal of the Lnapskuk project is to promote peace, justice, and mutuality among first nations and non-aboriginal peoples in the Maritimes. We offer educational workshops, skills-building, and we network and liaise with others who are also about relationship-building in our region. Our project goal is consistent with the key objectives of the Canadian government's 1997 “Gathering Strength” commitment. Our project's foundations are in the Peace and Friendship treaty of 1761, which is as legally binding today as it was the day it was signed, according to our Constitution of 1982.

Canadians are concerned about the pervasive, serious health, social, economic, and justice issues experienced by first nations people. We know the Government of Canada is knowledgeable about these issues too because the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples has documented them. Canada's response to the royal commission, “Gathering Strength”, was an expression of commitment to address these issues using the principle of partnership to define the authority, accountability, and responsibility of both Canada and aboriginal nations in a so-called renewed relationship.

The strong, positive stance of the Government of Canada inspired many Canadians, like me, as well as many first nations, with hope for a truly mutual and cooperative relationship between Canada and aboriginal nations. But Bill C-7, its assumptions, its content, and its process of development, goes against the spirit of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples and the commitment of “Gathering Strength” to work in partnership with first nations. It looks to be a last-ditch effort to hold on to the paternalism of the Indian Act era and to impose even more complicated external systems and limitations on those who have the inherent right to create their own systems and limitations, exclusive of the Canadian government.

Canadians believe a mutual relationship with first nations is possible. We want justice for our first nations neighbours. We want to be worthy of trust with each other. I commend all of you in your work, listening to so many of us who truly care about first nations and care about the quality of relationships among us.

I'd like to remind you of what the Honourable Minister Robert Nault told this committee on January 27, 2003. I quote:

The First Nations Governance Act is not carved in stone. I'm open to suggestions as to how it might be improved. As you know, as parliamentarians, it was delivered to you on first reading rather than second reading so that you and the witnesses who appear before you will have a great opportunity for open discussion.

He went on to say:

If you don't believe it's been done right, you can make amendments to the legislation of a significant matter.... If in fact in the discussion it is proven, and it shows somehow we have not put our best foot forward to improve the lives of first nations citizens, please give me recommendations as to how we might do it differently. This is a great opportunity to prove to many who have differing opinions that members of Parliament can be good legislators by having the ability to make fundamental change at committee at first reading, instead of sending it to you, as you know, at second reading, where you've already agreed in principle and there's virtually little that you can do except tinker on the fringes....

I'm reminding you of these statements because I've heard from my colleagues across Canada that this committee has told witnesses it has no power to address any of the underlying principles or processes of it that might show that the legislation does not put our best foot forward. Clearly, you do have that power and that responsibility.

By now you will have heard dozens of pleas to simply abandon Bill C-7 legislation because of problems with basic principles: its non-inclusive, oblique consultation process; its overriding of inherent and treaty rights for native self-determination and self-government; its re-entrenchment of the minister's power over the accountability and power of first nations; and its inconsistency with the expressed sort of relationship that Canadians want their government to have with first nations--that is, one of mutuality and respect.

Á (1100)

You will also have received dozens of suggestions on how to improve the legislation. I have here, for example, a copy of the recommendations submitted by the chiefs of the two P.E.I. nations, Lennox Island and Abegweit, and the recommendations of the Kaska Tribal Council. I encourage you to consider them carefully.

I understand that during the standing committee's hearings on Bill C-6, the specific claims legislation, you received about 40 recommendations to improve the legislation, and only one amendment was carried forward. This does not bode well for this consultation process today. This track record could beg the question, what's the point of all this, all the recommendations of the witnesses and the standing committee, if it all comes to naught?

My work is in relationship-building between Canadians and first nations in this region. This work is consistent with the voice of Canada as expressed in “Gathering Strength”. It's consistent with the vision of the mainline churches as these institutions repent for their past collusion against the culture and survival of first nations and as they work toward reconciliation and right relationships. This work is also consistent with the will of Canadians all over, who are disturbed by the current realities of first nations people and who no longer want to sustain a system and a relationship that is paternalistic, unjust, and unhealthy.

You on this committee have an opportunity to participate in the creation of a legacy of hope, trust, and justice with first nations. You can name the ways in which Canada's professed values are not expressed in Bill C-7. You can courageously recommend the abandonment of this legislation; you can listen to and incorporate the thoughtful, relevant changes that our first nations brothers and sisters have recommended; or you can go even one step further and recommend the creation of a new government-to-government process to address first nations issues that truly includes first nations on a mutual basis as expressed in “Gathering Strength”. We who are making right relationships with first nations people a part of our everyday Canadian lives ask you to go that one step further.

This week you stand among courageous people when you stand with the Government of Canada. When Minister Graham told the U.S. that we are not going to war with them, because of who we are--peaceful, justice-seeking people--it was inspiring and heartening. We applauded the government for such clarity and such courage.

Bring this clarity and courage to bear in our relationships with first nations. We are peaceful and justice-seeking people. We want to and can do the right thing for the right reasons.

Thank you.

Á (1105)

The Chair: Thank you very much for an excellent presentation.

Just as a little side story to show how we can get results in different ways--there are many ways to do the right thing--we asked three times through the regular channels to bring some heat in this room, because we were freezing, and then finally Mr. Hubbard went to the thermostat and put it up. Sometimes the solutions are simpler than we think. So there's a little parallel there.

Yes, this committee has a unique opportunity, specifically because we got the bill after first reading, and I have confidence in the members to bring significant amendments.

Thank you very much.

I now invite, from the Wabanaki Nations Cultural Resource Centre, the principal executive, gkisedtanamoogk.

Am I close?

gkisedtanamoogk (Principal Executive, Wabanaki Nations Cultural Resource Centre): Hello. I recognized your effort. I remember in law school, when you were checking off who was in class, you came to my name and all you could do was look up to see if I was there.

The Chair: I have only five letters in my name, and sometimes when people call my name I don't respond because it doesn't sound anything like Bonin.

Welcome, sir. We have 10 minutes together. We ask you to make your presentation.

gkisedtanamoogk: I think I'll just take a few of those 10 minutes.

First of all, I want to thank you all for this work.

I don't want to lose sight of a very important point in Indian country, which is that there is a very strong willingness to have a positive relationship with the Crown despite all the things that have happened. I think it's short of a miracle that having formed the concept of peace and friendship here on the east coast, despite everything that has gone on, we're still looking for peace and friendship. It has to be honest and forthright.

When government officials are trying to relate to first nations publicly, I often hear them expressing and emphasizing good faith. Unfortunately, and I'm pretty sure it's true in your experience too, there is very little demonstration of good faith so that we can really say, finally, we're making headway. We came close with the Marshall decision, a willingness to consider a historic relationship with first peoples and first nations. The result of that was, I think, the missing of a great opportunity to move our relationship forward. I also encourage you, based on what the last speaker recommended to you, to find courage and willingness.

I'm sure you've heard this message throughout your travels, and I know for sure that Minister Nault has heard it, that there's something fundamentally wrong with this process. That's where I'm coming from. It's the process. It's the unwillingness to listen to and work with the people.

Those peace and friendship treaties, which are pre-Confederation treaties, were all about making formidable positive relationships with each other--not based on some political legalese kind of thing, as we experience treaties and law in the modern-day context, but on how we create families.

Just an historic fact: confederacies existed in this part of the world before Columbus. Stated another way, we had found a way to resolve our conflicts, and it was through peace. It was through establishing social and economic relationships. I think by the time Columbus landed here we had economic trade systems that went all the way down to Mexico. We knew the people of this land.

A major component of relationships is that you don't fight battles with your family. We find meaningful ways of discourse and rational ways of achieving that harmony. That's a very fundamental principle, which still is vibrant in first nations cultures and spirituality.

In a sense I'm a newcomer to this area. My tribal people come from southern New England. I've been honoured to be part of the Mi’kmaq community of Burnt Church. I've been there for 20 years. I would classify myself as an advocate of the people.

I've seen and experienced the struggles of the people to find meaningful, substantial ways out of what I would refer to as state-orchestrated poverty. They're determined to find a way out of that. Unfortunately, that doesn't appear to be the government's position.

I encourage you to take heart that fundamentally we do want to further the cause of peace, both within our communities and with the Crown government.

Á (1110)

When we look at the future, what we see is a healthy Wabanaki people. In order for us to be healthy in Wabanaki, that means we have to have a positive relationship with you.

You have my comments in print, and that's all.

The Chair: We thank you very much. It was very moving and inspiring.

I invite the Aboriginal Rights Coalition, Atlantic, to present: Terry Young, Chief Jeff Tomah from Woodstock First Nation, and Councillor Terry St. Jacques from Tobique First Nation.

Welcome. We have 10 minutes, and we'll ask you to begin with your presentation immediately.

Mr. Terry Young (Aboriginal Rights Coalition - Atlantic): Good morning. My name is Terry Young and I'm from the Kingsclear First Nation, which is a few minutes upriver. I'm only here as a show of respect for my two leaders here beside me. I represent the Aboriginal Rights Coalition Atlantic.

The first comment I'd like to make is that I'm really disappointed, if we're going to focus on first nations people, that this meeting wasn't held in one of the communities. We have the resources just across the river in Saint Mary's to have held this meeting. They have a huge hall there, they have all the technology, and they have the catering. They have all that stuff possible. I needed to say that, that if you're going to focus on first nations people, well, in looking around the room, I see the people aren't here.

The representatives of ARC have decided as a committee to give our 10-minute allotment to Chief Jeff Tomah from Woodstock and Terry St. Jacques. I'm just grateful for the opportunity to share the slot with them.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

I should mention that as chief, had you registered on time, you would have had half an hour.

Chief Jeff Tomah (Woodstock First Nation, Aboriginal Rights Coalition - Atlantic): Oh, really? I don't need half an hour.

The Chair: Please proceed.

Chief Jeff Tomah: Honourable members of the standing committee, special guests and observers, ladies and gentlemen, first off I want to welcome everybody to Maliseet territory.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Aboriginal Rights Coalition for their kind consideration in allowing us to speak in their place on matters such as this that have a profound effect on our people and future. We are the Wolastokwiyik, commonly known as the Saint John River Maliseets. We have come to ensure that our voice is heard by this panel in response to Minister Nault's assault on aboriginal people in this country.

Bill C-7 is colonialism. The only difference is that the seat of colonialism has moved from London to Ottawa.

Bill C-7 speaks to accountability. The accountability is already there. Every agreement we enter into requires that we provide disclosure to Canada and our community members. If we refuse to provide community members with financial information, then Canada can and does provide the information to our community members. What Bill C-7 is really about is the government's response to questions about its own accountability and its failure to live up to its own obligations under funding arrangements.

Why are so many first nations communities in co-management and third-party management? It is because Canada has failed to provide adequate funding or monitor existing agreements. Bill C-7 will not fix this. Bill C-7 will only pass the buck. Bill C-7 will not improve the life of Maliseet people. It is an attempt by Canada to avoid questions in Parliament and point fingers.

Bill C-7 is in gross violation of our aboriginal and treaty rights, the British North America Act, the Royal Proclamation, and section 35, subsection 35(1), and section 25 of the Canadian Constitution, as well as an international covenant signed by Canada in 1976, a covenant that guarantees self-determination for aboriginal people. The legislation Minister Nault has proposed is not self-determination but is intrusive and seen by our nation as a direct threat to our culture, our identity, and our nationhood. We are not Canadians; we are Wolastokwiyik. We choose not to be Canadians.

The aboriginal and treaty rights of the Wolastokwiyik are inherent rights. They are rights spiritually rooted in the land that flows from our ancestors to the present generations. We the Maliseet people continue to maintain aboriginal title over the land and the resources upon it.

Above and within the boundaries of our traditional lands we the Maliseet people have maintained the right to determine our own future by consent of our citizens to govern ourselves within our own structures and institutions, which are based on our cultural values and our society's norms. We are insulted again by Canada, who believes that they know what is best for us yet are ignorant to our culture and our treaties.

Canada needs to remember that treaties in this territory were signed in 1725 and ratified by the Wolastokwiyik in 1726, a nation-to-nation agreement based on peace and friendship only. The Maliseets have never agreed to be governed under the wardship of the Canadian state; this was all imposed. This imposition has caused the current state in aboriginal communities throughout Canada. There was not a lack of good governance.

It is has been and it will always be the structure aboriginal people are forced to live under that is corrupt. This legislation or any future legislation cannot fix the problems facing aboriginal people today or tomorrow. This will not happen until Canada removes the racist legislation that has created so much havoc in our lives and allows aboriginal people to begin to manifest their own destiny.

Á (1115)

Democracy was found when the Europeans came to this land; it was not something that was brought over on the boats. Our people had true democracy, strong democracy, with accountability, responsibility, and sustainability.

Canada does not have the right to change the Indian Act to initiate accountability. The laws have been on the books for a long time. Over the past 15 to 20 years the Department of Indian Affairs has adopted a deaf ear, a blind eye, and a hands-off policy. If there has ever been a lack of accountability, it is on the part of the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs.

Through the decades our people have been telling Indian Affairs that policies were not adhered to and that Indian agents were not acting in the best interests of our people. Many times our people have come before parliamentary panels to speak of injustices and nothing was done. We were ignored and our voices silenced. We want to ensure that our voices will no longer be ignored by Canada. We were not consulted by the minister and we will not be consulted on legislation we had no part in drafting. The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has made accountability political.

It is true that our people want accountability and stable government. They want strong leaders who are chosen in a respectful way, not in a way that is dictated by a society with different values from ours. Disparity and dependency have dominated our communities for far too long. If Canada is sincere in its desire to assist the aboriginal people with governance, they need to be willing to forge a new relationship with mutual respect for each other's cultures and values.

To assist in breaking the dependency and disparity of the past, Canada needs to listen to and hear what the aboriginal people are saying. Bill C-7 is built on a very unhealthy relationship we have had in the past with Canada. We need to communicate on equal grounds with equal voices. Bill C-7 is an integral part of Canada's white paper policy and the buffalo jump policy of the eighties and should be taken off the floor of the House of Commons.

Our elders feel violated and used. They did not agree with the proposed legislation. If they did receive consultation, they most certainly did not give consent. We did not consent to be legislated by this proposed amendment to the Indian Act. It is encouraging privatization, capitalization, assimilation, and a foreign form of democracy. These are direct and clear violations of the values and rights that are entrenched in our culture and our nation. We cannot and will not agree to be governed under legislation that is contrary to the teachings we received from our Creator and that will encourage the demise of our existence as a distinct people.

We the Maliseets are responding to the Nault assault by focusing on our nation and our nation-building process. We understand the value of our treaties and want to reunify our people. We have begun a process needed to preserve our distinct culture. We need time to effectively develop our laws in regard to accountability, redress, selection of leadership, redistribution of the lands and resources within our territory, infrastructure and capacity building, the writing and ratification of a constitution for the Maliseet people, and lastly, the implementation of our treaty and inherent rights.

We ask the parliamentary standing committee to withdraw the legislation and encourage Canada to act respectfully and responsibly in dealing with the aboriginal people of this country. It is not acceptable to download federal fiduciary responsibilities without addressing the real issues facing our people today.

This legislation is not the quick fix the minister intended it to be. It is a one-size-fits-all approach with ultimatums that are unacceptable to the Maliseet people.

Thank you.

Á (1120)

The Chair: Thank you very much for an excellent presentation.

I will now proceed to the spontaneous presentations. I will say to anyone in the room who has not presented and who is not scheduled to present at any time that if you wish to make a two-minute presentation, you need only register at the table outside.

We will start with Ms. Hart Perley, followed by Juanita Perley.

Ms. Juanita Perley (As Individual): We will be making our presentations simultaneously, since you only allowed us two minutes.

Á (1125)

The Chair: You could have had 10 if you had registered on time. Your chiefs were all advised. The two minutes is something extra we're doing. We get criticized everywhere. People say, only two minutes? Normally, we don't even do that. This is something we chose to do to open up the floor.

Ms. Juanita Perley: From my understanding, you're here until 12 o'clock.

The Chair: No. Your presentation will be two minutes. The schedule's been made.

Please proceed.

Ms. Hart Perley (As Individual): Ladies and gentlemen, I have come here to give you my opinion as the clan mother of the Turtle Clan, which means I represent not just myself sitting here, but a traditional group of people who are selected by our own traditional method.

This governance act being imposed upon our aboriginal nations in Canada is further proof of the inequality, injustice, and total disregard of humanity toward aboriginal nations in Canada.

When Germany and Japan were defeated and destroyed, Canada rebuilt their cities, their industries, their economies, their nationhood, their self-sufficiency, and self-government. Everything was restored for Japan and Germany within 50 years. The Japanese were compensated for their losses in the Second World War, for displacement and loss.

However, the Maliseet Nation never was compensated for our loss and displacement. For the last 250 years we have not seen industries in our nation so that we may be self-sufficient. We have no economic development. We were stripped of our nationhood, land-based territories, and natural resources, and our treaties are not honoured by Canada.

The Maliseet Nation has been and continues to be sanctioned for well over 250 years. When will the discriminatory laws stop being made by Canada against the Maliseet Nation?

We firmly reject this legislation known as the governance act. It is time for Canada to apologize for its failure of its fiduciary responsibility to all aboriginal people in Canada. You can begin with the recognition and implementation of our aboriginally inherent treaty rights.

Accountability, you say? Yes, we want to see the federal and provincial governments account for all native moneys that are supposed to be in our trust fund. Under the Indian Act, we Indians are wards of Her Majesty, the Queen. She and the federal government are the guardians, and as such we, the Maliseet Nation Indians, are demanding an audit so that all past and present royalties from our natural resources be accounted for. These were taken from our land-based territories, which have never been ceded, surrendered, or given up.

From your scalp bounties to your advancement act to the Indian Act to the white paper policy and now the governance act, these papers are all connected. This has been long planned, this governance act. This is nothing that happened overnight. No matter how many laws you enact to justify the cover-up of land fraud of Maliseet territories, theft is theft.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Ms. Hart Perley: Maliseet people have never been a burden to Canada--

The Chair: One moment, please.

Juanita, do you wish to share your time?

Ms. Juanita Perley: I would ask that you not interrupt.

The Chair: Okay.

This concludes your presentation. If you present your document, we will make sure it's translated and distributed to all members.

We'll proceed to your presentation, please.

Ms. Juanita Perley: I thank you for the two-minute opportunity allotted to my people.

A review of the various presentations given to you thus far reiterates our views and beliefs that the Canadian government will not respect nor recognize the aboriginal peoples' ability to govern their own people. The imposition of the First Nations Governance Act is not your solution to our problem, nor is it our solution to your problem.

Throughout Indian country there already is a system in place for accountability known as the RMP, the remedial management plan, and there's the third-party management plan, the provincial forestry plan, and federal fisheries management plan, not to mention the few others that our people have respectfully followed to keep the peace between our nations and your people, even though it has been proven that your management plans are flawed.

Then there is leadership selection that is done through the Indian Act elections process. And what about administration? Are not our elected leaders the administrators of our communities already? Is this not what your people use them for? As for the related amendments to other acts, just how many acts does your government possess that affect the aboriginal people?

My people have in their possession a written document--or should I say written documents--and the governing tools that your government seems adamant upon imposing. We have accountability, leadership selection, administration, and the tools to make the necessary amendments. We have the great law that governs our nations in their conduct, legal and otherwise.

We also have a traditional government system that supercedes any system that your government may impose upon us. We have the Abenaki Confederacy, which makes all our people accountable for all their conduct, and this applies to all the tribes in the Atlantic region, including northern Maine.

Your First Nations Governance Act is flawed in many ways, and one way--the most significant--is the exclusion of our people when that document was drafted. I now must ask you why do you think that my people have fought continually against injustices brought on by the Indian Act? Why do we now strongly oppose this act? It is because of our exclusion at the initial process.

Your systems have not worked before and will not work now for the betterment of my people. Yet you continue not to listen to what my people have told your government regarding inclusion and exclusion, about the in-house battles that occur from the divisions created by those who believe your way is the ultimate way of life.

Á (1130)

The Chair: Thank you very much. Your microphone has been cut off.

Suspend proceedings. No more recording.

We thank you very much.

We now call on Rick Hatchette to make a two-minute presentation.

And for those of you who think the chair is being rude--I'm sure some think that--we've gone to every province and now we're going to Quebec, and these are the rules we apply everywhere. If I vary the rules I get criticized for letting people who support the bill go longer and cutting off short those who are against. So I've been consistent with everybody. And I apologize.

I apologize, sir, for interjecting. It's not in your time. We're starting now. Please proceed.

Mr. Rick Hatchette (As Individual): My name is Rick Hatchette. I'm a non-aboriginal technician who works for a tribal council. I had no intention of saying anything today, but in sitting through the process I'm quite offended.

What I've learned in the time working with aboriginal people is that consensus building works, that sitting down and discussing the issue and working it out, no matter how long it takes, works. This does not work. We're sitting here and people are being cut off, time-wise.

I look around, and with maybe one exception, non-aboriginal people are making decisions for aboriginal people. Who are we as non-aboriginals to make these decisions for them?

The Chair: Thank you.

I will explain that we are not as a committee making decisions for anyone.

Mr. Rick Hatchette: But when you go back--

The Chair: You can accuse the government; you can accuse the House of Commons. This committee has been asked by the Speaker of the House to take a piece of legislation from the House of Commons, go talk to the people, and if we can make it better, bring it back, good, and that's all we are doing.

We are talking to aboriginals. We are doing nine weeks on this amendment to one act. We did three months last year as a committee. So we are talking to the people, and we will, based on their information, improve this bill, and that is the only job we have. We don't negotiate agreements for the government. We are not a committee of the Prime Minister, the minister, or the government. We are a committee of the House of Commons. Why Canadians don't understand that...it's been like this since Confederation. And the role of the committee is limited.

I say this not to criticize anyone here, but throughout our consultation we took abuse that should have been directed to the other people in Ottawa. We took it, but in all fairness, we are only here doing a job. And I can tell everyone here, and put it on record, that the members of this committee, all of us, have enough seniority to be on a committee that travelled the world. This is a difficult committee and a difficult job. We accepted to do it because we care. Every one of the members, even those who are not here, does care and we want to make it better.

We want to thank you, yourself, and all the others who have presented because you are helping us do a better job.

Á (1135)

Mr. Rick Hatchette: I would like to add something because I don't think my two minutes are quite up.

You also wear another hat. You are all sitting members of Parliament. You will all be sitting in Parliament when this bill is eventually voted on. You will have an opportunity to go back and talk to your colleagues about this bill--

The Chair: We will.

Mr. Rick Hatchette: So it's not just about the fact that it's a standing committee that I am talking to now. I am talking to you as members of Parliament and members of political parties who can go back and talk to your caucuses and repeat what you have heard today.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

This completes our public hearings in Fredericton. We thank everyone for a most valuable hearing. There was excellent information. It will be useful.

We will resume our hearings in Montreal at five o'clock. The bus will leave at ten to.

The meeting is adjourned.