AANR Committee Meeting

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

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

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

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Wednesday, March 26, 2003

0800

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

The Chair

Vice- Chief Ghislain Picard (Regional Chief, Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador)

0810

0815

The Chair

Vice-Chief Ghislain Picard

The Chair

Chief Anne Archambault (Secretariat of the Assembly of the First Nations of Quebec and Labrador)

The Chair

Chief Anne Archambault

0820

The Chair

Chief Anne Archambault

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ)

Vice-Chief Ghislain Picard

0825

Mr. Yvan Loubier

Vice-Chief Ghislain Picard

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

Vice-Chief Ghislain Picard

0830

Mr. Pat Martin

Vice-Chief Ghislain Picard

Mr. Pat Martin

Vice-Chief Ghislain Picard

The Chair

Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.)

0835

Vice-Chief Ghislain Picard

Mr. Larry Bagnell

Chief Anne Archambault

Mr. Larry Bagnell

Vice-Chief Ghislain Picard

0840

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

Vice-Chief Ghislain Picard

0845

Mr. Yvan Loubier

Vice-Chief Ghislain Picard

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Vice-Chief Ghislain Picard

Mr. Pat Martin

0850

Vice-Chief Ghislain Picard

Mr. Pat Martin

Vice-Chief Ghislain Picard

Mr. Pat Martin

Vice-Chief Ghislain Picard

The Chair

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

0855

Vice-Chief Ghislain Picard

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell

Vice-Chief Ghislain Picard

The Chair

0900

Vice-Chief Ghislain Picard

The Chair

Vice-Chief Ghislain Picard

The Chair

0905

Grand Chief Ernest Awashish (Atikamekw Nation Council)

The Chair

Grand Chief Ernest Awashish

The Chair

Grand Chief Ernest Awashish

0915

The Chair

Grand Chief Ernest Awashish

The Chair

Grand Chief Ernest Awashish

The Chair

Grand Chief Ernest Awashish

The Chair

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

Grand Chief Ernest Awashish

0920

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

Grand Chief Ernest Awashish

Mr. Yvan Loubier

Grand Chief Ernest Awashish

Mr. Yvan Loubier

0925

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Grand Chief Ernest Awashish

0930

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Tremblay (As Individual)

The Chair

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

The Chair

Mr. Stan Dromisky

Grand Chief Ernest Awashish

0935

The Chair

Grand Chief Ernest Awashish

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Tremblay

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Grand Chief Ernest Awashish

0940

The Chair

Mr. Billy Two Rivers (Elder, Mohawk Council of Kahnawake)

0955

The Chair

Thonsahkotha ... (As Individual)

Mr. Billy Two Rivers

Kawennaro:Roks ... (As Individual)

The Chair

Kawennaro:Roks

The Chair

Mr. Billy Two Rivers

Grand Chief Joseph Tokwiro Norton (Mohawk/Canada Roundtable, Mohawk Council of Kahnawake)

1000

1005

Grand Chief Raymond Mitchell (Mohawk Council of Akwesasne)

1010

Mr. Steve Bonspiel (Acting Grand Chief, Kanesetake, Mohawk/ Canada Roundtable)

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Grand Chief Joseph Tokwiro Norton

1015

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

Mr. Steve Bonspiel

Grand Chief Joseph Tokwiro Norton

1020

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Grand Chief Raymond Mitchell

Grand Chief Joseph Tokwiro Norton

The Chair

Mr. Stan Dromisky

1025

Grand Chief Raymond Mitchell

Grand Chief Joseph Tokwiro Norton

The Chair

Grand Chief Raymond Mitchell

1030

The Chair

Chief Gilles O'Bomsawin (Abenaki First Nation of Odanak)

The Chair

Chief Gilles O'Bomsawin

The Chair

Chief Gilles O'Bomsawin

The Chair

Chief Gilles O'Bomsawin

1035

1040

The Chair

Chief Gilles O'Bomsawin

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief Gilles O'Bomsawin

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief Gilles O'Bomsawin

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief Gilles O'Bomsawin

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief Gilles O'Bomsawin

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief Gilles O'Bomsawin

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief Gilles O'Bomsawin

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief Gilles O'Bomsawin

The Chair

1045

Mr. Pat Martin

Chief Gilles O'Bomsawin

Mr. Pat Martin

Chief Gilles O'Bomsawin

Mr. Pat Martin

Chief Gilles O'Bomsawin

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

1050

Chief Gilles O'Bomsawin

Mr. Pat Martin

Chief Gilles O'Bomsawin

The Chair

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell

Chief Gilles O'Bomsawin

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell

Chief Gilles O'Bomsawin

1055

The Chair

Chief Gilles O'Bomsawin

The Chair

Chief Gilles O'Bomsawin

The Chair

Chief Gilles O'Bomsawin

The Chair

The Hon. Warren Allmand (Former Minister of Indian Affairs, As Individual)

The Chair

The Hon. Warren Allmand

The Chair

The Hon. Warren Allmand

1100

1105

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Hon. Warren Allmand

1110

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Hon. Warren Allmand

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Hon. Warren Allmand

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Hon. Warren Allmand

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Hon. Warren Allmand

Mr. Yvan Loubier

1115

The Chair

The Hon. Warren Allmand

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Hon. Warren Allmand

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

1120

The Hon. Warren Allmand

Mr. Pat Martin

The Hon. Warren Allmand

The Chair

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell

1125

The Hon. Warren Allmand

The Chair

The Hon. Warren Allmand

The Chair

The Hon. Warren Allmand

1130

The Chair

The Hon. Warren Allmand

The Chair

The Hon. Warren Allmand

The Chair

The Hon. Warren Allmand

The Chair

The Hon. Warren Allmand

The Chair

Grand Chief Joseph Tokwiro Norton

1135

1140

1145

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Grand Chief Joseph Tokwiro Norton

1150

The Chair

Mr. Larry Bagnell

Grand Chief Joseph Tokwiro Norton

Mr. Larry Bagnell

Grand Chief Joseph Tokwiro Norton

1155

The Chair

Grand Chief Joseph Tokwiro Norton

The Chair

Mr. Billy Two Rivers

1200

The Chair

Grand Chief Raymond Mitchell

1205

1210

Mr. Russell Roundpoint (Mohawk Council of Akwesasne)

1215

Mr. Micha Menczer (As Individual)

1220

The Chair

Grand Chief Raymond Mitchell

The Chair

Grand Chief Raymond Mitchell

The Chair

Mr. Russell Roundpoint

The Chair

Mr. Russell Roundpoint

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Grand Chief Raymond Mitchell

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Russell Roundpoint

1225

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell

Mr. Russell Roundpoint

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell

Mr. Micha Menczer

The Chair

Grand Chief Raymond Mitchell

1230

The Chair

Chief Rosario Pinette (Sept-Îles and Maliotenam Innu Council)

The Chair

Chief Rosario Pinette

1235

1240

1245

1250

1255

The Chair

Mr. Stan Dromisky

Chief Rosario Pinette

The Chair

1300

CANADA

Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources

NUMBER 055

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Wednesday, March 26, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¾ (0800)

[Translation]

The Chair (Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.)) : We are continuing our public hearings with respect to Bill C-7, an Act respecting leadership selection, administration and accountability of Indian bands, and to make related amendments to other Acts. We will have to suspend the work of the committee until a member from the government side arrives.

¾ (0802)

¾ (0805)

The Chair: We can now begin.

We are pleased to have with us the representative from the Assembly of the First Nations of Quebec and Labrador. I would like to welcome Vice-Chief Ghislain Picard, who is the regional chief, and who is accompanied by Anne Archambault, Jean-Charles Pietacho and Marcel Lalo. Welcome to you all.

We have one hour to spend together. We would invite you to make your presentation, and then the committee members will ask you questions.

Vice- Chief Ghislain Picard (Regional Chief, Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador) :

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Good morning to you and to the members of the standing committee.

I feel somewhat privileged this morning because I already had an opportunity to meet with you last January when I accompanied the National Chief, Matthew Coon Come. Obviously, the position that we will be presenting to you this morning will not be very different from the one that I presented in January, along with the national chief. Since our representations will most likely be along the same lines as those that you have heard up until now throughout the course of your travels, we will not be spending a great deal of time discussing the bill itself. We will focus primarily on the arguments that resulted in the chiefs from Quebec and Labrador asking the federal government to go back to the drawing board to try to come to an agreement with the first nations on a joint process that will deal with what we consider to be the real problems facing our communities.

I will read a text and try to be as brief as possible, so that we will have enough time to discuss matters afterward.

As far as we are concerned, this bill on first nations governance represents a step back which is both dangerous and questionable. The first nations have no choice but to build or re-build their own forms of governance. And they are offering to do so in cooperation with the federal government. But the government has not yet matched our openness. We are prepared to study and re-study, if necessary, the conclusions of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, still with no reply from the federal government.

And yet, our people are there, at the door, daily demanding accountability. They want especially to know when our governments will be able to meet their real needs. More than 3,800 members of close to 20 first nations communities signed a petition demanding that the House of Commons block the First Nations Governance Act and instead attack the real problems. Some local band councils, for example, the Mohawks of Kahnawake and the Malecites of Viger, passed resolutions in support of the petition. The petition circulated for only a few weeks in the fall of 2002, yet it gathered signatures from around 40% of the members of the communities.

To assist you in your work, I am submitting this petition as well as a political resolution adopted by most chiefs from Quebec and Labrador in June 2002, during a general assembly at Essipit.

Why does the Chrétien government stubbornly keep the door closed? Why does it refuse to listen to the proposals of the Assembly of First Nations, which is offering to help it to, once and for all, get rid of the Indian Act? The first nations do not want to see phase II of the governance bill go ahead as proposed by the federal government.

What does the government feel it will accomplish by inventing the wheel again? Why does it want to discredit, in the public's eye, the governments that the first nations have established? What could be its motive for trying to undermine their ability to acquire a different form of government, one that is a truer reflection of their culture and thus a form of governance more appropriate to their needs? What is the cause of this dangerous step backwards and who will pay the cost?

The first nations are in the front lines, which is the best position to see just how much the federal government's Aboriginal policy has failed. Yet it is the members who are paying for that failure, as we see in the social indicators that point out too well the harshness of their everyday lives.

The first nations have made it very clear to the federal government that the governance bill will not solve any of the numerous important problems in the first nations, indeed, that it will not change anything at all. The Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, Mr. Robert Nault, should come down from his ivory tower in Ottawa-Hull and visit the reserves. There he would see the real problems that the chiefs of the Quebec and Labrador first nations are being forced to cope with on a daily basis.

Reading the suicide statistics and burying your 20-year old son or daughter are not the same thing. Reading the unemployment statistics and knowing that at the age of 20 that your dreams will not come true, that you have no future, are not the same thing. Reading the housing statistics and living with a family of eight in unhealthy conditions are not the same thing. Reading statistics about band council indebtedness and having to daily refuse services that people desperately need are not the same thing.

[English]

Why not go after the real problems? The first nations have put initiatives into place to deal with problems in health and social services. They are taking firm steps with the federal government to make sure that those initiatives have the support they need. The federal government must support communities that request help to develop, implement, and run health and social service programs designed by first nations and Inuit organizations to meet the needs of their population.

The housing situation in the communities of Quebec and Labrador first nations is catastrophic. A joint report submitted by the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador and the housing liaison committee shows clearly that the federal budget allocations for housing are not meeting the needs of the first nations.

The report also shows that the situation will worsen with time if the status quo holds. It indicates that the housing needs of the Quebec and Labrador first nations require the spending of $1 billion, whereas INAC funding for housing has stood at $11.4 million since 1982. And although INAC has added another $24 million over the past seven years, the total funding meets only between 20% and 30% of the housing needs.

The devastating trend described by the report is due to the fast population growth in the first nations. The population of the communities will only get larger over the coming years. The 5 to 19 age group, which is made up of persons who will be forming their own households within the next 15 years, is much larger than the 20 to 34 age group--contrary to what is being seen in the non-aboriginal population.

The main consequences of the current situation will be a quicker deterioration of housing units due to overpopulation; increased family tensions; more learning problems among our youth; increased concerns for the health and safety of the communities' members; and greater indebtedness and financial risk. In that regard, we know that funding has not been indexed in 20 years, during which time housing construction costs have considerably increased. Why don't we look at the real problems?

Minister Robert Nault severely harmed the first nations when he told a reporter with the Edmonton Journal that the school system has been a failure. All the teachers in the Quebec and Labrador first nations took this insult to their professionalism and dedication very hard. We know that our teachers make every effort to provide quality educational services despite chronic underfunding and the absence of an education policy that could support them. Even worse, they have had to use every possible means to overcome the devastating effects of bad management by INAC of aboriginal educational services.

For example, we recall that during the 1960s and 1970s, when the department had despotic control of first nation education, the dropout rate of the students in our communities was close to 90%, and right up to 100% in some of them. Today, under the first nations' own education system, the dropout rate is between 7% and 12%.

Who has been a better manager of first nations education, INAC or first nations themselves? We have. Furthermore, since we took over our educational services, the success rate of our students has been far better than under the government's management.

¾ (0810)

So in summary, it is evident to us that any process for change can be legitimate only if at the outset it provides for input from the people who are its target. The only solutions that the first nations can approve will be ones that they themselves have developed. And because of that, they know they will have solutions that work.

For several years now, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has come under attack on all sides for its inability to resolve the social and economic problems of the first nations. The Auditor General of Canada has criticized the department for its incompetent management of public money. She sees that enormous amounts of money have been swallowed up without giving satisfactory results, because government managers do not assess the effects of the programs they run.

Lastly, in an interview that Mr. Robert Nault, current Minister of Indian Affairs, gave to Le Devoir on January 5, 2001, he admitted that the Indian Act, which dates back to 1867, does not stand up to the test of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In the same interview, he said that a good part of this outdated act could be judged unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada in the next several years.

And that is why Mr. Nault has tabled the First Nations Governance Act, which shows nothing but scorn for his fine declarations about how dilapidated the Indian Act has become and intentionally sets up a smokescreen. Far from radically changing the parts of the Indian Act that the first nations have denounced has being discriminatory, he is doctoring this old act to hide his administrative incompetence and put all the blame for that incompetence on the shoulders of the first nations.

When we look again at human rights, we see that, contrary to what Mr. Nault has said publicly, he has let himself be deceived by INAC officials, who through an unacceptable tour de force have put the blame on the first nations. Today, Mr. Nault is acting through his government's bill to show that the first nations are the authors of human rights violations. This accusation is absolutely false and is exceptionally defamatory. The minister must know that the first nations had nothing to do with the drawing up of old treaties, and later, the Indian Act, which in French was originally called the “Loi des sauvages”.

It is clear to us that self-government for the first nations depends on a governance process. But the first nations are the only ones who can properly define such a process.

The vision of the first nations requires major changes to the governance model that the federal government is trying to impose unilaterally, along with the consultation process, both of which run contrary to the government's previous commitment and to several court rulings.

Thirty-three years have passed since the tabling of the White Paper of Canada's Indian and Northern Affairs Minister in 1969, Jean Chrétien. Even though that document was firmly rejected by the first nations, it has enjoyed a career every bit as prosperous as its promoter has. The White Paper was based on the idea that, to develop, the first nations had no choice but to integrate into the majority society and adopt its development model. And now, 33 years later, that is all the government has to offer, and this prooves its lack of vision.

The 1969 White Paper offered the first nations the opportunity to free themselves from the Indian Act by accepting assimilation. But the first nations have always been looking in another direction, one that will lead to full self-government. That is how they hope to get free of the Indian Act.

The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples clearly denounced the government's handling of aboriginal affairs, and handed down a series of recommendations that were not tinged with colonial and paternalistic attitudes. The Chrétien's government first response to those recommendations did not carry any conviction. And now the government is dismissing them completely.

Canadian society should not tolerate this attitude and the step backward. The federal government must have the courage to admit publicly that its aboriginal policy has failed, and it must not shirk either its fiduciary or its moral responsibilities. Thank you.

¾ (0815)

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you, Chief Picard.

Do any of your colleagues have something to add?

Vice-Chief Ghislain Picard: Yes, they do.

The Chair: Ms. Archambault—or should we call you Chief Archambault?

Chief Anne Archambault (Secretariat of the Assembly of the First Nations of Quebec and Labrador) : I am often asked whether I should be called chief, and the answer is yes. In French, I would even like to see an e at the end of the word.

The Chair: In French, your title would clearly take the feminine form.

Chief Anne Archambault: That is correct.

If I had any message to send Mr. Nault, it would be this : I would say that in any bills that he tries to get through Parliament, be it C-6 or C-7, bills on land, claims and institutions, he must take treaties and Supreme Court of Canada rulings into account.

He should also take into account the recommendations made by the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. At INAC, we are supposed to have someone who is helping us, someone who knows how to establish close links with the Malecite First Nation of Viger, and not someone who destroys those links.

That is the message I would send Mr. Nault. Thank you for hearing me.

¾ (0820)

The Chair: Thank you, Chief Archambault.

I should point out that this committee reports neither to the minister, nor to the Prime Minister, nor to the government. This is a committee of the House of Commons. I am sure that departmental employees do listen to our deliberations, but if you have a message for Mr. Nault you can write to him directly. Thank you.

Chief Anne Archambault: I have already had the opportunity to meet with Minister Nault. I will do the same thing again. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Chief Archambault.

Mr. Loubier, seven minutes.

Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for coming here this morning. Everything you have told us is very interesting. It is particularly interesting to obtain real information. Chief Picard, this morning you talked about the school dropout rate, for example. It is interesting to note that the dropout rate, which used to be 90%, has dropped to 10% since the first nations took control of their educational system.

We have been provided with a number of statistics since we started the study of Bill C-7 and C-6, and we must always look at them very critically. For example, we have statistics on poor management by first nations. But when we look at all the figures available, including those commented on by the Auditor General of Canada, we see that you are significantly better managers than the federal government, which has a $530 billion debt. However, that is not the kind of comparison we usually hear.

I have a very basic question for you, Mr. Picard. In your remarks, you noted that Mr. Nault was very scathing about the Indian Act. However, now that he is the minister responsible for the Indian Act, not only is he maintaining this backward and degrading legislation, but he is even adding to it. Yesterday, we heard representatives from the Quebec Bar, who told us something about past legal battles, and the fact that we might well see those legal battles proliferate, because we have two statutes that frequently overlap and contradict each other. Bill C-7 might even contradict a number of Canadian statutes other than the Indian Act.

How can we explain the fact that the government both condemns, yet maintains and exacerbates the current situation? I would like some elucidation of the minister's reasoning in this matter.

Vice-Chief Ghislain Picard: We would also like to understand the reason behind this process. There is obviously a complete lack of perspective with regard to the legislative future of first nations. The vision of our region, which is no doubt shared by most other groups across the country, is as follows : let us finally develop an agenda which ultimately gets rid of the Indian Act and replaces it with something the federal government and first nations themselves have created.

Incidentally, our region in Quebec was until recently involved in all kings of processes with the departmental representatives, processes whose goal it was to strengthen the public administration of our communities and to gradually make the policies and programs we are trying to implement in our communities more meaningful.

In my view, this represented a form of governance because it helped our community managers develop. If that process had also had a legislative process on a parallel track, it would have given our communities more latitude. But now, we are simply trying to fix something which is beyond repair.

¾ (0825)

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Chief Picard, in the interest of consistency, I am trying to understand the current dichotomy between the draft agreement with the Quebec Innu and Bill C-7.

One the one hand, as far as I understand, the quebec government negotiated the agreement with the Innu as an equal partner. The negotiations were held between nations. The negotiations were carried out in the spirit of self-government. The way I see it, the spirit underlying Bill C-7 and Bill C-6, and others, does not reflect the principle of negotiations between equal nations which is alluded to in speeches. Instead, the federal government still has a paternalistic and infantilizing attitude. How do you explain this inconsistency? The federal government is deeply involved in the draft agreement with the Innu, but at the same time it is promoting a bill as retrograde as the Indian Act, that is, Bill C-7.

Vice-Chief Ghislain Picard: As you say, all this is very, very strange. There are 75 or 80 different negotiations going on with various nations across the country. On almost every conceivable issue, including political autonomy for these communities, we have been told that the negotiations would ultimately not be subject to the legislative process leading to the governance act. That is not very clear.

I have been a witness to some exchanges involving communities which are going through the negotiation process, and the federal government has not shed any light on some issues relating to genuine political autonomy for these groups.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Martin, seven minutes.

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Thank you, Vice-Chief. Thank you for your very useful brief, and thank you for adding your voice to the overwhelming majority of people across the country who stand opposed to Bill C-7 for many of the points you cite. But you do bring a new angle to some of the arguments, to the debate, and to me it's useful.

I'd like to start with the consultation process, or the lack of it. I note that you bring with you today, and you tabled, 8,000 or 9,000 signatures, from my rough count. Or did you add up the numbers?

Vice-Chief Ghislain Picard: It's more than 3,800.

¾ (0830)

Mr. Pat Martin: So 3,800 people actively signed their names, and where they come from, to object to Bill C-7.

Now, the first witness to this committee was Minister Nault, and he opened his remarks by saying that Bill C-7 was drafted in cooperation with 10,000 first nations people who told us what they wanted, and we wrote this bill.

I'm paraphrasing, but that's essentially what he said. And no one's challenging me, so....

Would you even remotely be able to say that you or the people you represent had adequate input into this bill? Was there a genuine consultation process, and if there was, would these be the priorities that you would have suggested in terms of changing the relationship?

Vice-Chief Ghislain Picard: First of all, I think the principle of governance is something that we certainly can understand, and to a certain limit accept, but it has to be made clear that we want to be at the table in designing any bill or anything regarding governance for first nations. This hasn't happened.

In terms of the petition we tabled for your consideration this morning, we had only a few weeks last summer to circulate the petition in the communities, and we feel that we had an overwhelming response. Close to 40% of the communities participated. That represents a far greater percentage than those who actually took part in the consultations, because in terms of numbers, for Quebec alone less than 300 people showed up in the different consultations that were held across the province. And we're talking about at least 20 different sites, cities and towns.

We feel that, yes, governance is important, and transparency and accountability are important concepts that we need to work at, but at the same time we have major situations in communities that deserve some attention. We have one nation in particular in Quebec that went through almost 20 suicides in the last three years. It's almost at the rate of one every three months. If you were to see that anywhere else in Canada, that would be unacceptable.

Look at the overcrowding in housing. We have eight to ten people in one house in aboriginal communities, whereas in non-aboriginal communities it's probably three, four or five, no more.

So we feel that there are urgent problems that need some attention on the part of the federal government, and the governance bill won't repair that, won't correct it.

Mr. Pat Martin: Absolutely. You raise a good point there. You believe there is a smokescreen here, and I agree, and many of the witnesses who have come to our committee agree. Even though the bill says it's about accountability and transparency, it's really based on a campaign of misinformation to try to get public support. In other words, for a couple of years there was a campaign to try to build the case that misuse of funds was so rampant in first nations communities that the heavy hand of this bill was justified.

Now, the real secondary objective here has nothing to do with transparency, or tinkering with bureaucratic details; it's about getting away from the fiduciary responsibility, or shifting that fiduciary responsibility from the Crown to bands and councils. They're the ones that would be sued, in other words, in this new formula instead of going to court against the Crown. Or the real objective is that they will know that they will infringe on rights, and inherent rights, or under the charter.

Can you expand on the smokescreen idea? Do you believe there is a secondary objective that the government is trying to achieve here on the larger picture of rights?

Vice-Chief Ghislain Picard: I'm sure there are many more objectives that we're not aware of. As I said earlier, we've been involved in different processes with the regional office of the Department of Indian Affairs for many years, and we've agreed on the objectives of the processes. It was always to try to increase the capacity of first nations to be able to govern themselves in different areas.

In many instances, we've always been very careful to not be too quick, but also to prevent the federal government from giving more responsibility to the province. That is another important aspect in terms of social services, for instance. We've always been caught up between the federal government and the province. We've always put forth the argument that where possible, and where we are capable of taking over some programs and services, then we should be the ones at the table and not the federal government and the Province of Quebec, in this case.

There are many cases where that's happening, so we have to be always vigilant, always ready, to respond to such situations.

The Chair: Merci beaucoup.

Mr. Bagnell, seven minutes.

Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): Merci.

Thank you very much for coming and for adding more information to our hearings. I take your point, that you're not happy with the process of the bill, and the other problems that have to be dealt with are obviously very important. But at the hearings we've been asking people basically about the 59 clauses of this particular bill. That's what the hearings are for, whether each of them should be improved or gotten rid of or whatever on each particular clause. So I just want to ask a couple of questions in that respect.

First of all, you mentioned that governance was important, changing governance, but major changes need to be made to the model the government is proposing in Bill C-7, which is not acceptable and may even be unconstitutional, I think you said.

I'm curious to hear some ideas. As you said, governance is important and needs to be looked at. What are some of your suggestions with respect to governance?

¾ (0835)

Vice-Chief Ghislain Picard: We're not going to comment on the bill itself. As I said, we had our people sign a petition that gives the position that the federal government should take back what's on the table and return to the drawing board, hopefully with first nations. So we have questioned the process and we are going to continue to question the process.

At the same time, as I said earlier, we are not in total opposition to the principles of governance and accountability, but there has to be a joint process we're going to be involved in as first nations, along with the federal government.

This is what we fail to understand. Stemming from the royal commission report in 1996 and then the response from the federal government in 1997, this same government talked about partnership and the spirit of partnership that is needed in terms of redressing and addressing the issues we bring forward. But yet in this case there is no sense of that, none of that spirit. Where has it gone?

As a vice-chief for the AFN as well...and we've been involved in many processes jointly with the federal government, such as Bill C-6, the claims body, the fiscal institutions, Bill C-19--all those were stemming from joint processes. And yet, when we have the final result, it seems that all of our concerns and positions that were expressed through these processes have fallen off the table somehow.

We fail to understand why that's happening.

Mr. Larry Bagnell: Just as a quick question, Madam Archambault, you said that the department should listen directly and not destroy the first nations. Can you just explain how it is destroying them, or how it would destroy them?

[Translation]

Chief Anne Archambault: We are working with our first nations to implement the appropriate social and education systems to improve their situation. We are holding meetings to find solutions and to create strategic committees involving the chiefs to help with the issues. It is unacceptable for bills to be passed in haste when our backs are turned.

It is unacceptable because we are trying to improve the situation. We have to build bridges between the authorities and first nations, but it does not seem to be working. Every avenue has been cut off.

[English]

Mr. Larry Bagnell: Thank you.

I just want to see if you have any suggestions--and you don't have to comment on the bill--on redress, which is one principle that I think is quite important, and other avenues for the first nation person who feels almost powerless if they think a decision has been taken incorrectly.

Do you believe, first, that there is a problem in some areas in that respect, and second, that models could be put in place to try to offer some redress to people, appeals or whatever, on decisions, or re-looking at decisions?

Vice-Chief Ghislain Picard: Well, there was one report, which cost close to $60 million and was five years in the making, that looked at every possible aspect of the relationship between Canada and first nations. I think it would probably be useful at this point in time, after seven years, to make an assessment on what we've done. And this is probably one of the rare reports that got the support of all first nations across the country as being a template for redressing the situation of aboriginal people. To me, it included almost every aspect of our lives as first nations peoples in this country.

One of the recommendations stemming from the report--and this is of course the Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples--suggested that the whole relationship between Canada and first nations needs to be redesigned, and that it should be done in the spirit of a government-to-government relationship.

I don't think we have come to that point yet, because we still have a department of Indian affairs that holds many keys in some of our communities. Obviously that will have to change, because there's always that paternalistic relationship still looming in the communities. To me, if we don't change those principles, obviously attitudes won't change.

How many years have we spent assessing and assessing again the situation of our aboriginal people? We have looked at such issues as aboriginal right and aboriginal title in all kinds of ways, and to me, maybe it's time now that we fall into a different level of partnership, because there are situations that are very urgent in our communities.

¾ (0840)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Monsieur Loubier, cinq minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Yesterday, Ms. Audette, who represents the Femmes autochtones du Québec, appeared before the committee and made a suggestion with regard to women who had regained their Indian status. She recommended that we suspend all first nations programs for communities which do not respect the rights of native women who have regained their Indian status under the Indian Act.

How do you feel about this suggestion made by the Femmes autochtones du Québec?

Vice-Chief Ghislain Picard: The group of chiefs of our region is a collective of chiefs of the various communities. Of course, it is very difficult to discuss, in that body, issues that relate to just one community. We proceed in this way in order to respect the principle of community autonomy.

However, the fact remains that some issues are extremely important for all communities, including the issue of Bill C-31 and the difficulty experienced to date by the majority of communities—I think that we have to acknowledge this—in complying with the amendments to the Indian Act as regards Indian women.

With respect to the suggestion to act as something of an adjudicator in cases where people are at fault, I think that if we are to establish rules, they must come from the grassroots. This is a major debate for society as a whole. At the moment, there are questions about the Indian Act and its non-compliance with other provisions, in particular, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is very clear to communities that somewhere, beyond collective rights, there must be mechanisms to protect individual rights.

As far as I am concerned, there is no doubt that where possible, communities will establish such mechanisms. Failing that, or until that happens, some communities may have to resort to other mechanisms if they cannot establish mechanisms of their own.

Take, for example, the Attikamek nation in Quebec, which is made up of three communities and approximately 5,000 individuals. They recently established their own constitution as a nation. I trust, and this would be quite reasonable, that this nation will be able to determine how its own identity, its own citizenship and the rights related to that citizenship must be expressed.

It is difficult for a nation to look at its neighbour and say that there is one way of proceeding and that it is not on the right track. That is unique to us, but so far we have not had the debate. There are some important issues here.

¾ (0845)

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Has the Assembly of First Nations ever considered having minimal rules that could apply to all? As we know, it is the body that represents all the chiefs of the First Nations of Canada. Has there ever been any discussion concerning having a minimum number of common rules so as to find an acceptable way of dealing with some of the problems experienced by aboriginal women?

Vice-Chief Ghislain Picard: I would say that the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador has not yet gone that far. It is a collective of chiefs, as I was saying earlier. The chiefs and nations take part on a voluntary basis. There is no doubt that the participation of chiefs is somewhat informal, because they come to meetings provided they can discuss certain issues they have in common.

The issue you raised has never been discussed thoroughly by the chiefs. We have raised some issues regarding the Indian Act and recent amendments to it, such as Bill C-7 in 1985. It is always a sensitive issue. The majority of the chiefs think that the issue is one that comes under local jurisdiction.

If the communities agreed to say that the Assembly of First Nations should adopt rules and procedures that would apply to everyone, that would be a decision for the chiefs to make. Perhaps other chiefs have some opinions on this as well.

[English]

The Chair: Merci beaucoup.

Mr. Martin, five minutes.

Mr. Pat Martin: There was a study done on first nations governance by the Harvard school, and I would ask for your comments on one of the points they made, that it undermines the very idea of self-governance to impose governance codes on people; that surely it's an aspect of true self-governance to be able to design your own institutions of governance that are sensitive to cultural or traditional norms.

Can you comment on the contradiction in the very name of this bill, that its very practice will undermine self-governance rather than enhance self-governance?

Vice-Chief Ghislain Picard: That's what we've been saying all along, from the beginning of this process, when the minister first announced the initiative on governance back in early 2001.

As far as I'm concerned, and as far as we're concerned as a region, it seems that's what we had been involved in, acquiring more capacity to better manage our communities. This is what it's all about, to have the possibility in the medium or long term to get rid of this relationship that is too paternalistic on the part of the federal government. It seems to me that not only does it undermine or contradict what you bring up, but it also undermines what we have tried to accomplish to date.

Mr. Pat Martin: The work you've been doing to date.

¾ (0850)

Vice-Chief Ghislain Picard: Yes.

Mr. Pat Martin: They go further to make another point, that good governance codes without sovereignty would be as unlikely to elevate the standard of living as sovereignty would be without good governance.

In other words, would you agree that the cart is before the horse here, that the federal government should be negotiating steps towards genuine sovereignty, giving meaning and definition to section 35 of the Constitution? That should be the dialogue taking place here, not tinkering with the Indian Act.

Would you agree that sovereignty is the issue, and true self-governance and sovereignty should be what's on the table here today, not the narrow issues in Bill C-7?

Vice-Chief Ghislain Picard: On that point, my view is that sovereignty is not even part of the discussion. Sovereignty already belongs to the people, and the different nations and communities across this country. What is lacking, in my view, is that there is nothing done to implement it or give it full meaning.

The fact that we would have the possibility of developing our own forms of governance would be part of that, and would only give more meaning and more credence to what we say about sovereignty. Because the same issue, the same question, applies to rights. Those rights are already recognized. They don't need further recognition. They only need to be implemented.

Mr. Pat Martin: Good point.

Now, some of the recent Supreme Court rulings say that if the government plans on infringing on rights, there has to be justification, like a Delgamuukw, that specifically deals with justification.

Now, the Indigenous Bar Association and the Quebec Bar Association both agree that Bill C-7 when implemented will infringe on rights and even extinguish some rights--the right to self-governance--and the federal government has legal opinions to the contrary, but they won't release them to this committee, to the Quebec Bar Association, or to the Indigenous Bar Association.

Is it your opinion, or the legal opinion of the AFNQL, that Bill C-7 when implemented will infringe on rights, or extinguish rights?

Vice-Chief Ghislain Picard: It is one of the arguments behind the position of not only the AFNQL but also the AFN as a whole. The majority of first nations will reject this bill.

Certainly it's been hard work, extenuated to some extent by having had to go before the courts in the last 30 to 50 years in order to get more meaning and more definition to what we've been saying all along. I feel that in some instances we've raised the level of discussion higher, a couple of notches at least, and there's no way we're going to let something bring that down.

Our view is also that, yes, there are major judgments coming before the Supreme Court, but what we also see is that the same government that is supposed to be our fiduciary is the same government that is going on appeals on those same judgments. There is another contradiction for you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I just want to clarify one thing on legal opinions that the government may have.

This committee has never requested, and therefore we have not been refused, those documents. Maybe as individuals you might have requested, or as parties, but as a committee we've made no such request, and it was not denied.

Five minutes, Ms. Karetak-Lindell.

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Thank you, and thank you, Chief Picard, for your interesting intervention.

I want to go back a bit to consultation. Coming from northern Canada, I know it's always very difficult, when you're dealing with different languages, to try to get as much information as you can to the people. From my own experience, I've realized that you can give a lot of information to people, but sometimes they're either not interested in looking at it or they have difficulty understanding some of it, and rely on the leaders to help them understand the issues and come to their own conclusions.

When we were in one of the other communities, one chief responded by saying that they don't consult on issues that they don't agree with. I found that very strange. To me, from my understanding, that's censorship. And I think that's what some of the community members are upset about, that they don't always get the information that has been given to the bands, that it doesn't always filter to the people. I know every community is different, and how you disperse information has to be different, because the communities are different.

In your own organization, when you're consulting with people, if people choose not to take part, what more can you do? How do you label that as consulting or not consulting?

Perhaps you would just give me your input on that.

¾ (0855)

Vice-Chief Ghislain Picard: What I can tell you is that in most of the communities where we send information, sometimes they tell us that we send too much information. At the same time, what has to be said in this case, in the case of the governance initiative and later the bill, Bill C-7, is that we saw the kind of information that came from government. When you received it in the mail, it was about that wide, but when you finally opened it up, it was about this wide.

As you say, sometimes it's difficult for people who speak a different language, when they don't speak French or English, to fully comprehend and assimilate the information they get. But it's also very difficult when it is only one-sided.

Last summer, in June of 2002, after chiefs adopted a position rejecting Bill C-7, we also said that, yes, it is important to reject and be opposed to something, but it's also important to have the means to better inform our own people on why we are rejecting a process, or anything. So we produced pamphlets reflecting our position as chiefs, and we distributed those pamphlets as widely as possible, not only to aboriginal communities but also to non-aboriginal communities. And that's why we had a petition circulating in the communities, with a position and a statement presented.

You know, we wouldn't circulate a petition unless the information was available beforehand. That's what we did. We also did some radio spots in some communities, where possible, in order to better present the position that we defend as leaders.

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: Mr. Loubier touched a bit on self-government. I know the title states that it's an interim measure to give tools to communities on their way to self-government positions. How many of your respective bands or nations here in Quebec are involved in self-government negotiations in terms of what you think would be enough to qualify to be exempt from the bill itself?

Vice-Chief Ghislain Picard: I would say probably the majority of communities would come under the bill itself, because so few are involved in actual negotiations with Canada. Those are the communities who have taken probably a stronger position in rejecting the bill.

Obviously, this is not the case for the Crees in northern Quebec. They have their own agreement, stemming from the James Bay agreement in 1975. We have some Innu communities at the table as we speak, but those negotiations have not been concluded. And we have other processes in place for different nations, such as the Mohawks, but the rest--which is the majority of communities in Quebec--are not really in actual negotiations with Canada.

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you very much, Vice-Chief Picard. We have three minutes left, and we want to give you the floor for that time to make your closing comments.

¿ (0900)

Vice-Chief Ghislain Picard: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you as well to the members of the standing committee.

Before leaving, I would like to give you a photocopy of the 1969 white paper which, to our mind, is still very current. You understand that given the historical nature of the document, we prefer to keep the original.

When we read the 1969 document and try to understand the logic that has surrounded Bill C-7 for the past two years, we can see that in many ways, there is not much difference in the attitude and the mentality behind the intentions.

I want to emphasize this morning that we do agree with the idea of governance and better management of our communities, but we find it quite absurd that no one seems to be able to come up with ways of dealing with the real problems facing our communities.

Bear in mind that the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples recommended that approximately $20 billion be invested every year for 20 years in order to remedy the situation regarding all aspects of life in our communities. That recommendation, I think, has been highly neglected.

In our opinion, before you set us up with a process designed to strengthen the first nations' capacity for governance, we need to review the relationship between the federal government and first nations government, and rethink it in order to restore dignity and pride in our communities. We have been discussing these issues for 30 years. Most of us have already spent half of our lives making the same arguments and sharing them with you. For us, it is very clear that in the very near future, I hope, we could do this exercise together. I think that our communities need futures that are a bit more promising.

In 15 years, young people will take over from us. Instead of five people around your table, as there are this morning, there will be 15 or 20. I do not think we can afford to mortgage future generations.

The Chair: Vice-Chief Picard, allow me to make a short comment. I cannot contradict what you have just said. I am convinced that something must be done. I cannot conceive of anyone wanting to deal with problems as serious as the ones you have mentioned using the Indian Act, which is not a good piece of legislation.

Our job is to make amendments using Bill C-7. There are many problems that must be remedied; problems that we are ashamed of as Canadians. I cannot imagine anyone wanting to resolve the many other problems using the Indian Act, an act that no one likes.

I am convinced that what you are expressing must be achieved and that it must be done in good faith. Personally, I hope that it will not be done under the Indian Act. Do you have any comments on that?

Vice-Chief Ghislain Picard: I reiterate that we do not proudly identify with the Indian Act. However, despite that, you must bear in mind that it is an act that has existed for more than a century and it is not necessarily easy to get rid of it. Moreover, something must replace it, something to which we will have contributed, as that is not the case with the current Indian Act.

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

We will now hear from the Conseil de la nation Atikamekw, represented by Grand Chief Ernest Awashish, who is accompanied by Benoît Tremblay and Hélène Dubé.

Good morning, and welcome. Do you prefer to make your presentation in English or French?

¿ (0905)

Grand Chief Ernest Awashish (Atikamekw Nation Council) : In French.

The Chair: Thank you. We have 45 minutes together. We invite you to make your presentation, and then we will move on to questions.

Grand Chief Ernest Awashish: Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, members of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources, good morning. First of all, we want to apologize that the English version of our brief is not available. Thank you.

The Chair: That is something that happens very often, but in the other language. For once, our anglophone colleagues will have to wait.

Grand Chief Ernest Awashish: I am the Grand Chief of the Attikamek nation. I was elected by universal suffrage in September 2002. The Attikamek nation has more than 5,500 members and has long occupied the territory located in the centre of Quebec called Nitaskinan, in Attikamek. It is located more specifically within the Saint-Maurice River catchment basin.

The Attikamek nation is made up of three communities : Manawan, which is located northwest of Joliette; Wemotaci, which is northwest of La Tuque; and Obedjiwan, on the Gouin Reserve, west of lac Saint-Jean.

We are currently involved in comprehensive land claims negotiations with the federal and provincial governments, which should soon lead to the signing of a treaty within the meaning of section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982.

Since I only have five minutes, I am going to highlight the recommendations that the Conseil de la nation Atikamekw (Atikamekw nation council) has included in the brief it is presenting to members of the standing committee.

¿ (0915)

The Chair: Grand Chief, I apologize for interrupting you. We had asked everyone to make a five-minute presentation, but very few presentations ever last five minutes. If you continue, however, I will not interrupt you.

Grand Chief Ernest Awashish: Very well. Thank you.

The first recommendation we make to the members of the standing committee is to review and reform the consultation process. We feel that the recent experience of the Department of Indian Affairs in its efforts to have its bill accepted was not very fruitful and has a few lessons to teach, if the department can see things in this way.

It seems clear to us that the department will at the very least have to review its consultation process, a process which usually begins when first nations are put face to face with legislative proposals that have already been prepared and drafted, as is the case with bill C-7.

Basically, we are confronted with a fait accompli. We feel that these consultations, because the department insists on saying that these are consultations, will not amend the bill, except in some minor ways. Nonetheless, many of us believe that the theme of governance deserved an in-depth debate, with regard to both its substance and its form.

Given that the government was dealing with questions that could affect the lives, the rights and the governance of the first nations, it could have first consulted our representative organizations to find the best way to deal with these matters, even before mandating legal drafters to draft bills without any regard for the lives of our nations and for our fundamental rights.

We see that the consultation process launched by the government is not truly consultation. If it had really wanted to consult us, it would have made sure it did so before drafting the bill that we are dealing with here. This comment also applies to the other legislative projects of the government that affect us.

Secondly, we recommend that the government abandon this bill. This flows from the first recommendation. Given that the consultations were not truly consultations, we believe that the government should stop trying to get its bill adopted as long as it has not obtained the full and entire participation of the first nations in the process. Otherwise, you would once again be faced with the collective bitterness of the first nations and their organizations everywhere in Canada.

Third, we recommend that the government take some time to reflect about the issue of tribal councils. In our opinion, given that it is dealing with governance, the government could begin to reflect seriously on the phenomenon of tribal councils and their recent evolution within the context of developing self-governance; but to do this, the government will have to recognize that first nations exist as national entities and accept the idea that bands— although we hate using this term which is usually applied to the bandits on this planet— represent governmental units within a national framework and not outside of that framework, as had been established by the Indian Act. Communities are governmental entities, and we have always known this fact, but they are also parts of larger wholes that we call nations, even if these communities and nations are functioning outside of any agreement, covenant or treaty.

We also recommend that the government continue debating the recognition of the inherent right to self-government. If the government recognizes that self-government is an inherent right of the first nations, even of those who are not covered by a territorial agreement, then it must not be alone in defining its nature and shape.

If the government wants to redefine its relations with the first nations, it must begin to listen to us and to take our sensitivities into account when dealing with the issue of our rights, which, in our opinion, have never been extinguished.

And I beg you to stop using such hateful and colonial terms as “band” and “band council” when you draft bills that deal with us. Our reality is much better described in terms of “community” or “community council”. And above all, do not confuse the term “first nation” and “community”. For instance, Obedjiwan is a community of the Attikamek First Nation.

Unfortunately I must conclude on a pessimistic note. We know that despite our efforts, the government will adopt its bill. We have no illusions about this. We have known for a long time that this consultation, which is no consultation at all, has been pursued to give the Canadian public the impression that the department is seriously listening to us. Our long experience has shown that the government will summarily cast aside most of our recommendations. The bill has been drafted. Sure that it is doing the right thing, the department will table it in the House of Commons to have it passed, and this will make everyone happy, except the first nations.

The problem is that in the department, there is a culture whereby the department knows what is best for us better than we do. But thank you, nonetheless, for having listened to us.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Grand Chief. Would your colleagues like to add a few words?

Grand Chief Ernest Awashish: No. I am done.

The Chair: Thank you.

I will ask you to be patient with us. We have travelled across the country and have come to realize that the meaning of the expression “politically correct” varies greatly from place to place. We don't know what to say to people anymore. We are doing our best to use the right language. We learn the language for one place, but when we move to a new province, the language changes as well.

Grand Chief Ernest Awashish: Our comments are not necessarily directed at committee members.

The Chair: Thank you. I understand what you mean by “band”. It's also a problem for me.

[English]

Mr. Vellacott, five minutes.

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

Chief, you obviously have major problems with the consultations, as do many of the folk we've heard testifying. My question, though, is do you want to simply stay with the Indian Act, with all its warts and wrinkles and flaws and problems, or are there other interim-type measures that could be...if this isn't satisfactory, as you see it, in Bill C-7? Or do you want to kind of weigh it off until some future day when there's some full-blown self-government agreements negotiated?

[Translation]

Grand Chief Ernest Awashish: Thank you for asking me that question.

Of course, if we want something else with regard to the Indian Act, we should expect to get it by other means, rather than through the negotiations dealing with our rights. We do not like the Indian Act. Nor do we like the Governance Bill. We want to negotiate as equal partners, nation to nation, and the way in which the relationship is defined could also be included in an agreement or a treaty.

We are involved in a process. We reject the Indian Act and we have always done so. I don't know if you are aware of this, but I think Canada is the only country which does not treat its people based on bloodlines. I have always felt we were treated like cattle, like animals. It is unbelievable that Canada wants to maintain this type of management system.

In answer to your question, I would say that we do not want to hide behind the Indian Act. That is not the way we do things. We want ancestral rights and first nations government autonomy to be a priority for the Canadian government. This was the approach chosen by the Attikamek nation. This is the approach it has taken during the 25 years it has been in negotiations.

¿ (0920)

[English]

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Merci.

[Translation]

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

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to make a brief observation. The Indian Act will not disappear when Bill C-7 is passed. Yesterday, the Quebec Bar confirmed this, along with a few other things. Bill C-7 would be added to the Indian Act. In other words, the insult of Bill C-7 would be added to the injury of the Indian Act, which is 130 years old. So, in that regard, I agree with you.

You concluded your presentation on a fatalist note, but nevertheless thanked us for having listened to you. I would ask you to be optimistic, because it is impossible to continually defy justice, fairness and the law. This is what we have observed since we began our travels and even from the start of our hearings in Ottawa.

Nobody wants this bill. None of your native brothers or sisters in Canada wants this bloody bill. They have all presented us with arguments as solid as yours to show that nothing has changed in 130 years, despite the fact that the present reality and politicians' political statements, which on their face appear to be progressive—with talk of negotiations between nations, dignity, respect, and so on—do not jibe.

Your message is the same as that of 99% of the witnesses we have heard from, who said that the bill should be trashed and negotiations restarted with your participation. Some opposition members of Parliament support that.

I have a question with regard to this bill. Given the state of negotiations between your first nation, the Quebec government and the federal government, and given the fact that the Attikamek have a constitution, which Grand Chief Picard mentioned a bit earlier, were you told that you would not be subject to Bill C-7 or that this sword of Damocles would still hang over your head?

Grand Chief Ernest Awashish: I think this provision is contained in section 35 of the bill, but it will only be applied if there is a treaty. But if there is no treaty, there is a good chance the legislation will be enforced, whether we like it or not.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: So, no matter—

Grand Chief Ernest Awashish: We are denouncing the imposition of this bill. We believe that there should be a new process which is vast in scope, but we are always told that the government has limited resources. In the past, we have made several proposals which would give us more time and which would make the negotiation with the Attikamek, among others, a priority in Quebec. Unfortunately, things don't always work out the way we want, or at our pace.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: You are told that resources are lacking, but if resources were allocated properly, this problem might not crop up. The controversy stirred up by by Bill C-7 may gise rise to a great deal of friction between the federal government and the first nations. I believe we are about to witness a waste of resources on a grand scale.

A little earlier, I ask Chief Picard whether he could explain the inconsistency between the current process and the current negotiation processes, or those which have been successful, such as the ones involving the Nisga'a and the Cree, among others, or the one currently involving the Innu, where the government is fully involved and which has lead to a certain basic government autonomy, through nation-to-nation negotiations, processes which were marked by respect and a new spirit of dignity. But then we are confronted with Bill C-7. Is it a coincidence that good agreements were negotiated, which, to our mind, happens much too infrequently, because on the other hand it seems that the government is firmly determined to push ahead with Bill C-7? I would like to receive a clear explanation of the situation. I put the question to government officials, but they did not give me an answer.

How do you explain these mind-boggling differences? The difference between these two processes is the same as the difference between night and day.

¿ (0925)

The Chair: Unfortunately, Mr. Loubier used up his five minutes to ask his question, but if you like, you may answer his question later on.

Mr. Martin, you have five minutes.

[English]

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

I also would like to make the point, Grand Chief, that there are members of the opposition who agree with you that this bill is not only fundamentally flawed, it's an insult, and it stands in polar opposite to the direction that first nations people want to be going in, revisiting their relationship between the federal government and first nations. We've heard it in both official languages and some traditional languages that people are offended by this, that it's an insult.

What worries me is that I still don't think even members of this committee understand. They just don't get it. Otherwise, we wouldn't be hearing some of the lines of questioning that we hear--tinkering with details rather than addressing the issue of substance, the larger picture.

So I'd ask you, Grand Chief, about the default code, the default mechanisms that kick in; if a first nation fails to adopt codes of governance that are compatible with Bill C-7 within two years a default mechanism kicks in and a code of governance is imposed on that first nation. Would you agree that it undermines the very principle of self-governance to impose a code of governance on a people when an aspect of self-governance surely must be the right to design your own governing institutions that are compatible with customs and traditions?

[Translation]

Grand Chief Ernest Awashish: Before addressing the question, I just want to say that the bill is basically useless for us, because the principles of transparency and accountability which it addresses, among other issues, are already contained in funding agreements which each band council signs with the government. Each band council must respect the obligations in the funding agreements; further, this legislation would strengthen the grip the federal government has on the councils. The bill would reinforce the provisions which are already included in the funding agreements.

It is true that there are inconsistencies with regard to the bill. Imposing several codes goes against the principle we are aiming for, which is to obtain government recognition of our rights. By the way, I have no idea who came up with the term “governance”. We did not find it in any legal dictionary. Even the Petit Robert does not interpret the word the same way you do.

So, this basically puts into question the principle. It is beyond comprehension. For us, it is inconceivable for the government to pass this bill while at the same time negotiating a treaty which would recognize our inherent right to self-government, that is, our right to government autonomy and our right to adopt our own legislation. What more do you want us to say? It is simply not rational.

¿ (0930)

The Chair : There are 30 seconds remaining. Mr. Tremblay.

[English]

Mr. Benoît Tremblay (As Individual): I'll just be quick.

You're right, there is a problem with the government, in one part, claiming to recognize the principle of self-government. It says this in all its texts. Each time you get out a text from the government, from the department, what you hear is the recognition of self-government as some sort of a principle.

First of all, they shouldn't say something like that, because it always was there. But that's another debate.

If you recognize self-government on the one hand, then why are you going to define the parameters of that self-governance, or governance? It's such a terrible contradiction I don't know how we can live with that. I don't know how some people at the department were able even to write out this text.

You're right; if you don't do this, then this kicks in, and if you don't do that, then this kicks in. Where is self-governance in there? There is none.

So there is a contradiction in terms and in the spirit and in everything about this law.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Dromisky, five minutes.

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

Clarification. If you examined the history of the first nations in this country and their relationship with the government, and all the statements you make regarding self-governance that you claim the government has printed and distributed, I think you would find that, in reality, self-governance, as defined by native chiefs and by peoples within these communities, will vary from one end of the spectrum to another end of the spectrum.

We talk about democracies. What is a democracy to you, and what does it mean to me, and what does it mean to somebody else? It could vary dramatically. We know that there are countries in the world in our history that claim to be democratic societies, and their constitution says that they are democratic societies. Quite a few dictators have that terminology worked into their constitution, just as Russia has had it in their constitution for a great number of years, and other countries too, even Spain, which was under a dictatorship. So I can't accept the argument that....

You know, we have to do something to clarify what it really, truly means, and it'll vary from British Columbia to Quebec, and from Prince Edward Island to the north. It'll vary from community to community, but that variation has to be determined by the people and not by the federal government. It has to be put in the hands of the individuals on that reserve, that native community, that first nations community. It doesn't matter what you call it, but it's the people there who have to determine the variations and the degree to which the variations will take place.

My problem is, I can't understand why the chiefs will not allow this interim step to take place for people to determine and define these democratic procedures, which will lead to the kinds of things and objectives that we hope for, for transparency, so-called democratic behaviour of the ruling, and participation by the individuals on the reserve in policy-making and so forth.

I would say to you that not all chiefs are as perfect as you are. We have 633 of them. This deal has emerged because of years and years and years of complaints, concerns, needs, and problems that have been identified time and time again. They have never been solved, they just keep re-emerging.

They could be there on one reserve for the next ten years, and then a new chief comes in and they change completely. The problems of the past disappear, and a new form of governance takes place. We know that these fluctuations take place.

I still can't understand why the chiefs will not allow a process to begin on an interim basis to try to solve some of these problems. Because not all reserves are perfect when it comes to governance.

The Chair: I don't detect a question there, but I'm sure Mr. Dromisky would like your comments.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Yes, certainly. I'm sure they have a good reply.

[Translation]

Grand Chief Ernest Awashish: I am struck by the fact that people are saying that the chiefs are not allowing for an interim process. The question is a bit vague but I will try to answer it by telling you what is needed to ensure political stability, regardless of any changes with respect to the chiefs.

Most of the chiefs have a two-year mandate as stipulated in the Indian Act. This varies in our area as well. The Indian Act can be viewed as a series of rules governing society in the local community, but, as far as we are concerned, if we are to promote stability and the respect of individual rights in the community, we must develop rules that resemble the Constitution of Canada. We have drafted part of our constitution. We have not yet completed the task, but we will do so. We have drafted part of the constitution, which we implemented immediately and which deals, among other things, with an electoral code for the Grand Chief of the Attikamek nation. This is a recent measure. We have worked on it and we are still working on it. Sometimes we don't have all of the necessary means.

You have stated that the chiefs are not allowing for the establishment of an interim process or interim rules. I cannot really comment on that statement.

We are in favour of transparency and respect for rights. Sometimes we don't have the means required to enforce that. In addition, it is difficult to persuade the government to acknowledge these rules since most of them fall outside of the legislative framework, namely the Indian Act. This is why we are currently involved in a negotiating process.

¿ (0935)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Grand Chief Ernest Awashish: Can Mr. Tremblay add something?

The Chair: We will give him permission to do so, but we have gone beyond the time limit.

[English]

Mr. Benoît Tremblay: I understood your question, but the thing is, the law has good intentions. When you read it.... It's like saying, “Are you against apple pie?” So you have to say yes; it has good intentions.

However, this ignores the fact that many communities have improved on questions of governance, typically speaking. Others have problems. Everybody recognizes that. Why can't we give the necessary resources to those communities to be able to evolve on the questions of governance? You didn't have to make a law to do that. You could have addressed the issues of those first nations having problems.

Sometimes the political problems equate with economic problems and all kinds of problems that you can find in that community. You have here a law of good intentions, but the thing is, it applies to everybody, and this is the insult.

Secondly, why, if it had good intentions, was it not so self-confident as...? I'm sure there was a table like this one at the department; why did they not say, how can we deal with these problems? We're having accounting problems. We're having all these complaints and so on. Why didn't they have the AFN or any kind of representative organization around the table to say, okay, how can we deal with this? We still have a fiduciary responsibility towards first nations, so how can we together deal with this?

But it wasn't done like that. And that's where most of the opposition to this comes from, an opposition to process.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We have time for two-minute rounds.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I'll defer.

The Chair: Monsieur Loubier, deux minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: That's okay, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Martin, two minutes.

Mr. Pat Martin: Give them more time to have closing remarks.

The Chair: On the Liberal side, two minutes, anyone?

[Translation]

We would invite you to make the closing comments. Seeing as the committee members have no further questions to ask you, you have more than enough time.

Grand Chief Ernest Awashish: In fact, we do not have much to say about the bill itself. We would just ask that you suggest to government authorities, to your government, to not do what they usually do. We are usually consulted once the texts are drafted, written and read at first reading in the House of Commons. I think there is still a lot of ground to cover.

I am not saying the Attikamek nation is perfect, far from it. We have our strengths and weaknesses, but personally, I think we can manage our own affairs. Sometimes we lack the means to do so, but the intention is there. We still have some way to go to get out of the indoctrination of the Indian Act. Like it or not, that habit is ingrained in us. Unfortunately, too many of us hide behind that legislation for lack of any other viable alternative.

So I would like to thank you for listening to us anyway, as I said. Thank you.

¿ (0940)

The Chair: Thank you very much. I would just like to make one comment. As a francophone outside Quebec, I never miss an opportunity to boast about my heritage. We haven't been in the Province of Quebec very long, and I noticed that when committee members ask questions, you provide answers. I hope I am right in boasting about my heritage. Based on my knowledge of French Canadians, when they are asked questions, you may not like their answer, but they do give an answer.

We spent a lot of time listening to people who avoided the questions, who did everything to avoid answering them, but in Quebec, when a question is asked, we get an answer. That helps us a great deal. Thank you.

I now give the floor to the representative of the Mohawk/Canada Round Table, Alwyn Morris, who is here with Steve Bonspille, Billy Two Rivers, Kawennaro :Roks and Thonsahkotha.

[English]

If you'll just allow me a little bit of power, I would ask that the children be right in the centre, because to me they're more important than anybody else in this room.

Voices: Hear, hear!

The Chair: Do you wish me to address the delegation in French or in English?

[Translation]

Would you like me to address your delegation in French or in English?

In English, thank you.

[English]

I understand Alwyn Morris will be coordinating the presentation. We have 45 minutes together.

We'll give the lead to Mr. Billy Two Rivers.

If he doesn't do it right, I want you guys, our two illustrious children, to help him, okay? And if they give me a hard time, I want you to help me.

Billy Two Rivers.

Mr. Billy Two Rivers (Elder, Mohawk Council of Kahnawake): [Witness speaks in his native language]

Good morning, my brothers and sisters. My name is Kaientaronkwen. I don't expect you to remember that, so it will be Billy Two Rivers to you.

I'm here as an elder, and we have two children who are going to do a traditional thanksgiving for the benefit of the meeting in order to give us a good and receptive mind to the dialogue that will come before us for the Mohawk presentation, whether it's the round table or the individual communities. So I will ask them to do in our language a thanksgiving that is done daily in gatherings such as this.

[Traditional ceremony performed in native language]

¿ (0955)

The Chair: Thank you very much, Kawennaro: Roks and Thonsahkotha.

Is Billy Two Rivers your chief? Who is your chief?

Thonsahkotha ... (As Individual): [Witness speaks in his native language]

Mr. Billy Two Rivers: [Witness speaks in his native language]

Kawennaro:Roks ... (As Individual): [Witness speaks in her native language]

The Chair: Joseph is the chief?

Kawennaro:Roks: Yes.

The Chair: Well, Joseph and your Member of Parliament had better look out for their jobs. You guys are coming, right?

You did an excellent presentation. We're very proud of you.

Mr. Billy Two Rivers: If I may, this was a thanksgiving that is done daily. We honour and respect Mother Earth and all the things she has given us. Basically we begin with the earth, then the level of the earth, and then in the sky we end up honouring the sun, the moon, and the Creator. It reminds us of our place in creation and the necessity to be harmonious with it.

With that, I turn the meeting over to the chiefs.

Grand Chief Joseph Tokwiro Norton (Mohawk/Canada Roundtable, Mohawk Council of Kahnawake): Good morning to everyone. We appreciate the time you've allotted to us.

It may seem a bit strange or unusual to some of you who have never witnessed or participated in a ceremony or a greeting as you've heard and seen this morning, but it's important for us to give you just a bit of a taste of what our people are about. It's important to understand that regardless of what age we are, we all have a role to play.

We consider it very important. We consider it essential that the roles our people play are indicated in one way or another. We felt it was important to be able to do this at this time--to point out to you that we have not forgotten and we will never forget what we are about.

The reason we are here is for these young people. Our time is limited on this earth and our presence here is only to help preserve our future generations and help them survive.

It is incumbent upon the leadership that's here in this day and age, regardless of whether we know everything, whether we know very little, whether we make mistakes, whether we have good relations with the Government of Canada or whatever province we're in--here it's the Province of Quebec--or wherever we may be, to be able to do our part to ensure that these young people have a strong future and, more specifically to their own background, their own history and their own culture.

That's why in each of our communities we've fought and stuggled hard and long, separately, to establish the things we know that are important and essential not only to our survival but to our growth and to our evolution, because we are people who evolve over the course of time.

We're here as a tri-community. We came together back in 1993, I believe it was, when the Liberal government was first elected, under crisis situations, under threat, armed intervention in our communities as a result of a perception of illegalities, criminality, and things of that nature. We had come out of a very difficult time in 1990--all three of our communities--and it didn't take very long for change in government to suddenly look at us again as being a threat, although it was now of an economic threat, if you will.

That's part of the problem we face and the things we do jointly, separately. We're always perceived to be committing criminal acts and things that are in defiance of peace, order, and good government. Yet we are peace, order, and good government people. We believe very strongly in that.

If we are recognized and supported by governments at the federal and provincial levels, we will strive, we will be successful. That is our intent. It is not our intent to be disruptive. It is not our intent to destroy someone else's economy, political system, etc., as ours has been destroyed over the course of time.

We take issue when we are being categorized and when someone is trying to corral us, if you will, or put us into a box and paint us all with the same brush. We are accountable. We have been accountable. We continue to be accountable and we will be accountable into the future.

À (1000)

We make no secret about our desire to be autonomous, not independent. We are not separatists. We are very strongly linked to our past. The past makes us what we are and where we're going into the future.

In this day and age we have endeavoured to come together as communities, as part of the Mohawk Nation, to develop, if we can jointly, various initiatives that will, first and foremost, benefit our people. Almost equally important and not totally secondary is the fact that we also have a strong relationship with Canadian society. We look upon you as being our younger brothers and sisters, simply because of the fact that we've been here a lot longer than you have. We know the land. We understand where we live. We know our history. We know what has happened in the past. We don't forget the past, but we also don't allow it to drag us down and keep us locked in the time period that is not in keeping with the modern context of where we need to go into the future.

Our political, social, and economic development is based a lot on your economic development. In our three communities, in the locations where we are, we can no longer depend on the traditional ways of living. We have to get into modern mainstream economies. We no longer have the luxury of depending on the natural resources that somebody else has depleted, that somebody else has taken over in the course of time.

We are not living in a rich resource region, as are our brothers and sisters in the far north who have lumber, timber, mining, water resources, and everything of that nature. So we have to rely on modern mainstream economies. Some of us are into technology. Some of us are into all sorts of other different activities that feed into and are a part of your economies. And we are not prepared to give up on the things that we have preserved over the course of time in the areas of our immunity to taxation.

The First Nations Governance Act purports to provide a new future, a much upgraded future for native people. We know; we've looked at it, we've studied it very carefully, and we've found that in no way does it come close to where we are at this point in time.

Our communities have gone beyond the means of the Indian Act. We find we're bursting at the seams as far as the Indian Act is concerned. Somehow, some way, this government, this country has to find the means, the imagination, the willingness, the political will, and not leave it in the hands of bureaucrats and policy deliverers to tie us down and keep us in a constraint. We feel that we have advanced beyond the present boundaries of the Indian Act and we can no longer be contained--and we will not be contained. We won't allow the governments to contain us. We will stick together for all the various reasons that I have pointed out to you.

We've had to develop independently simply because our homeland has been divided up by others--by provinces, by states, by other countries, the United States and Canada, over the course of time. The Europeans came here with their own wars, with their own political arguments, with their own baggage, and they imposed that on us and they divided up our territories.

I'm not here to cry the blues about that today. That's over and done with. But we have not forgotten, and we've not given up on what our beliefs are.

We feel very strongly, collectively and separately, that you have no right to impose upon us in any way, shape, or form the type of governance bill or any other bill that does not meet the standards we have established for our future, for our people. Yes, we expect help and support, if for no other reason than that we look upon what has happened to us and what we are going through now as decolonization. The only difference is, in other parts of the world where decolonization has taken place, the colonizers have left. Here, you're not leaving; you're staying.

À (1005)

So we need to find an everlasting, coexisting relationship that respects who we are and what we're about and, in turn, respects what you may be and what you might be in the future, because nobody has a clear definition of what a Canadian is at this point in time. We can tell you what Mohawk people are, or Kanien'kéha:ka people are, where we come from and who we are. Either we do that separately or collectively, but we know that.

You had these young children who sat here and provided you with a snapshot of what we call the Ohent: on Karihwathkwen, the words that come from before all things, that honour all nature and all things that are spiritual to us. This is only a small part of what we are and who we are. Those are the things that we want to continue to hang on to. But we also know we live and move in the modern world.

Those are my opening remarks. I don't want to take too much more time. There's much more we could talk about, but I'm sure you have lots of questions on your mind, and perhaps during the Q and A we can relieve you of some of those concerns or some of the things that you might be very curious about.

So I'll ask my colleague Ray to make a few remarks.

Grand Chief Raymond Mitchell (Mohawk Council of Akwesasne): [Witness speaks in his native language]

I don't want to repeat too much of what Joe so eloquently put in front of the panel. As he says, the reason we're here is for the youth, our kids. We need to give them a future. We need to give them hope for a future.

In Akwesasne I'm proud to see now that our school is teaching our culture. When I went through the system it was run by the Department of Indian Affairs. I was raised in a Catholic family so I never heard anything of Mohawk culture until I went to high school in a city away from Akwesasne.

So one good thing I can see that the government of Akwesasne has done is to reinstill being taught at home about who you are. It's very important, as a Mohawk people, that we know who we are.

Joe mentioned accountability. We're all for accountability, but we are accountable to our people. In Akwesasne, the same as in the other two communities, we have monthly meetings where we report back to our community members. We take direction from our community members. So we're not opposed to any type of accountability. I guess we disagree on who we're going to be accountable to.

You're going to hear more specifically about the communities this afternoon in the presentations.

Joe talked about moving ahead. Right now in Akwesasne we're having a struggle in moving ahead because of the direction the community wants us to proceed in and some of the hurdles we have to overcome.

During that lull, if you want to call it that, I've seen the infiltration of...let's call it organized crime. It's sad to see what it's doing to some of our youth. I can give you one example.

I talked to a young gentleman I know who was a month away from graduating from high school. I had word that he'd taken to driving a boat at night, so I confronted him. I talked about the future. His mindset was not the future. His mindset was, I can make $500 tonight; what can you offer me?

So they're not thinking that far ahead.

The culture that we have, the values that we have, are being squashed because now the influence of the dollar has become more important. We have our elders dealing with a potential drug problem in our communities saying, well, if the police can't do it, I'll do it. I'll sacrifice my life to make sure my grandchildren have a future.

So that's the level we're at, and we're trying to do things in Akwesasne and Kahnawake to address those problems. But we need honest partnerships with the Crown to achieve some of our goals.

All we're saying is sit down and talk to us. Let's not go back to what happened in 1990. We all know what's going on now with the U.S. We don't want to go anywhere near that type of mentality.

I want to add that I believe as a Mohawk people, as part of the Iroquois, we have a unique relationship, the Kaswentha, known as the Two Row Wampum doctrine--as Joe mentioned, a peaceful coexistence. And that's what we have to get back to.

In conclusion, we're saying sit down and talk to us. We know what our community wants and the directions we want to go in.

Wneeweh.

Steve.

À (1010)

Mr. Steve Bonspiel (Acting Grand Chief, Kanesetake, Mohawk/ Canada Roundtable): She:kon.

My name is Steven Bonspille. I am a chief on the council in Kanesatake. I'm here today to lend support to our sister Mohawk communities of Kahnawake and Akwesasne. We will not be making an individual presentation today, but we are certainly part of the Mohawk/Canada Roundtable, and we support the views being expressed here today by our sister communities.

One thing I will add is that what I am looking for--and I have examined Bill C-7--is the respect that is not there for the existing jurisdictions of the Mohawk communities and our Mohawk people. It is conferring powers to us that we already have, that we were born with, within our nation. Those have to be respected. Our jurisdiction, our rights, our heritage, and our culture have to be respected above all else.

That's what I have to say for now. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I can relate--and I know others can--to your commitment to children. For most of us, myself at least, we find we're in politics for children. I can tell you that the phone in my riding office is ringing as we are here. It's adults calling to ask me to return the call, and what they want to tell me is everything I am doing wrong, everything I don't know about, and all the mistakes I make. So they don't need me. They are smarter than I am. But the children need our efforts, and like you, that's why we are involved, to make it better for them, and I commend you for that.

Colleagues, we'll have a three-minute round. Three minutes is three minutes. If you take two and a half minutes to ask a question.... You know the rest of the story.

Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I guess I have two major questions here, simply.

What stage along the way are you at, individually or jointly, in terms of an agreement with the Government of Canada on a self-governing format or arrangement? Maybe you are already as good as there, and I'm not arguing the point that you haven't had self-governance along the way already.

Secondly, I am wondering what you have in the way of, if not the Canadian Human Rights Act, something you have or will be developing, some kind of Indian human rights act to protect the rights of individuals.

Those are my two questions.

Grand Chief Joseph Tokwiro Norton: Maybe I can give you a bit of a response from the Kahnawake perspective, but I know, as a collective, we have approached--and this goes back quite a number of years, almost 10 years--the Government of Canada collectively. It seems to have been in a crisis mode, usually, and we have attempted to douse fires, if you will. But we have also put forth collective efforts in terms of re-establishing linkages between the three communities in policing, health services, education, in quite a number of areas, to start building and reconnecting the dossier and the legislative ability to do these things. It's very difficult while at the same time independently negotiating with Canada.

I know in Kahnawake we have a separate process with regard to what we are calling the Canada-Kahnawake relations process. We don't necessarily consider it a self-government process. We call it a process of self-determination--which does scare some people, but basically it shouldn't, once you get into the actual detail of it. It doesn't involve anything related to what may be going on in other parts of the world.

Right now, we're looking at, for lack of a better term, a charter in Kahnawake. I know in Akwesasne they have talked about it, and there has been some reflection of that also in Kanesatake. But we are talking about a charter--and perhaps at some point giving it a different name, but to the same effect, if you will--that provides a kind of comfort about how the government itself will operate and how it will not be able to impose on the individuals in the community. The charter, or this bill, if you will, will also sort out and point out the duties and the rights and responsibilities of the individual, as well as the protection for the collective. So that's some of the work that has been done in Kahnawake.

À (1015)

The Chair: Thank you.

We'll now go to Monsieur Loubier.

To our guests, Monsieur Loubier will speak to you in French, and someone else will translate and tell you what he said in English.

Monsieur Loubier, trois minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would first like to thank Thonsahkotha and Kawennaro for their very kind words earlier. Secondly, I would also like to thank you for your presentations. Your voice has been added to all of those from across Canada who object to Bill C-7. In the end, the only solution would be to scrap this bill and to restart the negotiations on an equal footing with nations that we view as nations and who have the right, as nations, to govern themselves.

I would like to ask just one question. The minister boasts of having consulted many aboriginal nations and of having gotten a consensus, and he says that the consensus is reflected in Bill C-7. What does the Mohawk nation think of that?

[English]

The Chair: Maybe we can ask Chief Joseph to respond, because Chief Raymond didn't have his translation, or Chief Steve.

Mr. Steve Bonspiel: To answer your question, Mr. Loubier, neither the minister nor any of his officials have ever been to Kanesatake to see us to see if we support that bill or not. It's obvious that we don't support it. But he has never taken the steps to come to Kanesatake or to even write correspondence to Kanesatake asking for our opinions. Nothing has happened. I can guarantee you that.

This is our first chance to openly speak on Bill C-7 in Kanesatake. I don't know about Kahnawake or Akwesasne.

Grand Chief Joseph Tokwiro Norton: I have a brief comment.

Rather than attacking anybody individually or anything, all I can tell you is that there were hearings held here in the City of Montreal. I believe it was last year or the year before. They were actually broadcast into Kahnawake over the local radio station. There was a lot of confusion regarding that,so people thought this was being held in Kahnawake. People thought this was something that we were involved in and we initiated.

We did not participate. We chose not to participate. Basically, I believe there has been a strong distortion of the facts in terms of the number of people who participated, simply because anybody and everybody who wanted to walk in there from any sector could. It was an open type of session. People did participate actively.

I don't really think it was a true picture of what the feeling was across the country.

À (1020)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Martin, three minutes.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you.

I would like to begin by thanking you all for sharing with us some of your beautiful language and your beautiful culture. It's very important for us to hear you. It helps us to understand what people really mean when they present around this table.

A grand chief in northern Manitoba, Chief Francis Flett, made the statement that “our laws are in our language”. I had to think for a long time to understand what he meant. He didn't just mean that our laws are spoken in our language. He meant that our laws are in our language. These things are starting to register with me as we travel across the country. I hope they are registering with the government too, because you've made the point very well today.

You do make the point in your brief, though, that you consider Bill C-7 to be a violation of the Two Row Wampum or the treaty relationship that exists between your first nation and the Crown. The Indigenous Bar Association agrees with you and the Quebec Bar Association agrees with you.

If it does in fact violate or infringe on inherent rights or treaty rights, does the minister have any choice but to take a step back and withdraw this bill and start all over again? And I could ask you, I suppose, your position on the violation of treaty rights that's inherent in the implementation of Bill C-7.

Grand Chief Raymond Mitchell: I agree with the statement you make 100%. We, the Akwesasne, feel it is a violation against the Two Row Wampum, which talks, as I mentioned earlier, of peaceful coexistence. To summarize it, it's two canoes on the river; we will not interfere with yours, you will not interfere with ours. How can one regulate over another, or legislate over another, under this guise of peaceful coexistence?

In regard to your comment about the grand chief, I said earlier we have what is called the great law of peace. That is where our constitution lies as Onkwehon:we people. It's not something that Canada can attempt to modify in any way, shape, or form. So I agree the minister should step back and, as I said earlier, look at us, and most of the stuff they're looking for we have done already.

I'll leave it to Joe now.

Grand Chief Joseph Tokwiro Norton: As a brief interjection to your comments, beyond what the Quebec bar and others have said, even at the international law level experts who have looked at what Canada is doing have said that this--not only the First Nations Governance Act, go right to the Indian Act--actually violates self-determination on an international level.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Dromisky, three minutes.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Thank you very much.

First of all, congratulations. I'm so pleased about what you are doing within your community and passing your language on. Not only are your children speaking it but they are learning how to read it as well, and I think that is really significant.

There is a misconception with a lot of people. They think the federal government should be responsible for setting up programs on the reserves and so forth. I say never. It's up to the individual families and the councils and the communities to determine whether or not this is that important and that they must pass it on to the young ones.

Congratulations.

Now I'm going to go down to the specifics. I have no intention of putting anyone on the spot but I think, for the record, it is extremely important that sometimes we get information, because it is by gathering information that we can make wise decisions.

I want to talk about transparency. First of all, policy development. Within your communities I don't know what strategies you make for policy-making. Is it just the chief and the council? Do you have special committees? Do you have other people within your communities to help and contribute? Do you bring experts in or whatever?

Another question I would like to ask is regarding financial matters. Do the people in your communities know how much money comes in on your reserve, let's say, from the federal government, and do they know what it's for? Do they know at all where the money is being allocated, how it's being spent? Do they know what your salaries are? Is there a salary for council members? Do you know how much they get? Who determines the salaries? Does the community have any part to play?

Those are some of the facts that I think are extremely important for us to know regarding the operation in your communities, because that is what the bill pertains to.

À (1025)

Grand Chief Raymond Mitchell: I will attempt to answer some but not all your questions, or the three of us here will.

As for transparency, yes, I feel that at Akwesasne we are transparent. Just recently we did an audit presentation in plain layman's terms so that the average member could understand what was being said, not in auditor's or financial lingo but on-the-street language. We even brought the auditors to the meeting to answer the questions that we couldn't.

On policy development, we have numerous boards and commissions--all community members. In Akwesasne we are spread out in three different areas, so we always try to get equal representation from each of the districts, and so our committees are usually made up of six, nine, or twelve people. That is where the policies are developed, and most of them are, as I said, community members. We may have a chief responsible for that issue on there as a non-voting member to keep council informed.

We have a law enactment process when we develop new legislation for the community. It's all passed by the community, not by the council. So there is a whole state of meetings, community information sessions, on the legislation, and the legislative committee also is made up of our community members. So most of our legislation and policy is community driven.

Grand Chief Joseph Tokwiro Norton: What we have attempted to do in the past as three communities under the Mohawk round table is to consolidate for our communities the different development of policies and laws and legislation, and all the things we have done. We have tried to bring that together so we can share it amongst each other and have an exchange so that those who don't have it can learn from it, can grow from it, and be able to put in place the things.

We had, and we continue to have, exchanges among all the various departments within our communities who work together very closely, and do these exchanges so that they can build the structures, the administrative infrastructures, that are required for our development and our growth into the future, because that's what we are about--growth and development.

The policy development in our community is similar to Ray's in Akwesasne, as I'm sure it is with Steve. We are as transparent as you can get anywhere, probably even more transparent, and more accountable than the federal government and the provincial government.

All this talk about accountability in the First Nations Governance Bill is as a result of the Department of Indian Affairs coming under scrutiny and, in turn, their putting the pressure on us, and most of us have gone through the very things they now want us to produce. We did that 10 years ago. We are long past that, and it simply ties us down, and takes us back, to 15 years ago.

So if people want to see fax information, audits, records, and finances, everything is there. If they want to see it, the door is open. Come in, take a look, bring your own experts with you. At one time we even had community meetings that we called specifically on finances, and after a while the numbers of people just petered out and they didn't show up anymore.

As far as salaries are concerned, we produce a range of salaries, not necessarily specifically what everyone wants, but if somebody in my community walks up to me and asks me how much money I make, I will tell them how much money I make. I have nothing to hide and I'm not concerned about that.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

That completes this hearing. We do thank you very much for bringing the children especially.

If you have a one-minute comment, we will have time, but we don't have more than that.

Grand Chief Raymond Mitchell: For the record, I'd like to officially table the document. You have a draft, and we'll leave this with you. I want to ensure it's on the record.

À (1030)

The Chair: We will make sure any document you leave is translated and distributed to all members, even those who are not here.

Thank you very much, all of you. And thank you very much, future leaders.

I now invite, from the Abenaki First Nation of Odanak, Chief Gilles O'Bomsawin.

Colleagues, we haven't suspended. We have a guest coming to the table. Conversations outside, please, even members of Parliament.

Chef O'Bomsawin.

[Translation]

Chief Gilles O'Bomsawin, would you prefer to be addressed in French or in English?

Chief Gilles O'Bomsawin (Abenaki First Nation of Odanak) : You can use either, it doesn't matter.

The Chair: We will follow you.

Chief Gilles O'Bomsawin: I have one quality: I am bilingual.

The Chair: We would ask you to make your presentation. We have 30 minutes to spend together. Let's hope there will be enough time for questions.

Chief Gilles O'Bomsawin: My group is not as impressive as that of my Mohawk brothers. I thank my Mohawk, Innu and Attikamek brothers, as well as all of the other nations for supporting a bill that is crucial to us.

[English]

I want to excuse myself for interrupting Mrs. Elizabeth Kingston when I came up to this table. Maybe it wasn't the time to do it and I really regret it. I think it is my time to be sitting here, so I'll keep it short.

The Chair: There is no apology needed. You represented two different groups and you're entitled to participate in both.

Chief Gilles O'Bomsawin: Thank you.

We have a lot of doubts about this megaproject that Mr. Nault is coming up with. First of all, he neglected to come to meet with us, the chiefs of Quebec. We had so many assemblies in Halifax and every other place, but Mr. Nault never accepted to have a face-to-face confrontation with us. This is our first doubt. When I have something to hide, I'm afraid to face somebody. If I'm honest and I have nothing to hide, I will come forward. So to me, this was an insult to first nations.

I forgot to present myself. I am Gilles O'Bomsawin, chief of the Abenaki First Nation of Quebec.

In many respects, Mr. Nault may have good intentions, but let him tell us what his intentions are.

I found these little booklets. I had a completely different program, but I'll cut it down because I found better ideas in these booklets.

They say that all of us really had programs and consultations. A beautiful group came to our reserve and made a really good presentation, and our native women.... I was there—not as chief, but as an observer. I do not see in this famous document, Bill C-7, the things we suggested at that meeting. Maybe there are one or two principles in there, but I do not see how they can say that they took our remarks into account when they never wrote them down.

This bill here looks much like the Indian Act, Loi des Sauvages du Canada. It may be modernized, but we don't know if it is better or worse. I don't want my children to live the experience I lived when I was younger. I don't want you to cry on my shoulder; it's not a question of that. It's a question of common sense, that we are people. We are sovereign; we have inherent rights; we can govern ourselves; we can decide who we are, and we know who we are. I've heard other nations say this as well, but I believe deeply in my heart that I can decide who is an Abenaki or not. I don't need a man or woman in Ottawa to decide this. I propose a code of citizenship to decide myself who my people are.

I am 68 years old. I have lived on my reserve most of that time. I have to exile myself to earn my living, so I know what it is not to have any work because you're an Indian. I have to come up with this, because I did live that era.

In many ways we were good Indians, but there's an old saying that the best Indian is a dead Indian, and I believe that, because I have had no success until now proving that I have been a better one while living than dead. But it's an old saying. You say I'm going back to colonization, and maybe I am, but the past tells us a better story than the future will, because we don't know the future. Tomorrow doesn't exist. But I know that it will exist, and we, the first nations, will always be there.

I am jumping around a little bit and might confuse you people. In 22 years of politics, I've always tried to follow a program but never could.

À (1035)

I don't think I'll realize my dreams before I pull out and retire.

I think that what's coming from the heart is a lot better than what's coming from a paper, because it's your thoughts. Mostly I'm looking forward, for my children, to having equality among the men and women, my sisters, my cousins, that have a different height in the same family.

As I said, I might confuse you. I am coming up with many subjects.

We talk about equality in this book here that he says he has done. I mean Mr. Nault when I say “he”. I don't want to be in disrespect of Mr. Nault, but I have to be at times. My sister's children have a degree less than my children. My sister and I are from the same mother and father. Why does that exist if we talk about equality--equality or justified something?

One of many places where I've seen Mr. Nault give us disrespect is at Akwesasne. We had a chiefs meeting, and Mr. Nault checked his watch twice in half an hour. I would seem to be impolite towards you people if I was checking my watch while you were talking. You say, well, he's anxious for me to get out of here, or I'm anxious for him to get out of here.

There are many points where I doubt very much this Bill C-7. I have been a chief for ten years and a councillor for twelve years, so I've seen good days and bad days. These are a lot of subjects, and there are many more that I wanted to bring up, but I want to limit my time and respect the time that Mr. Bonin gave me. I try to be respectful to everybody, as they are to me.

In closing, that is pretty well an exposure of my declaration today. There may be one more point. I wanted to take out a citizens' code to protect myself, to be my own boss on my reserve, to decide who I am, who we are. But I had to redeem myself through the membership code. We've lived the membership code for the last 300 years, 500 years if you want, or 1,000 years if you want. It's Ottawa who decides who we are.

I am repeating myself on this, but that is one point that I really hold on to, and if I have to, someday I'll go to court for it.

If you have any questions, I'll do my very best to answer them. Thank you.

À (1040)

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. O'Bomsawin. I hope that when you see me check the clock you'll forgive me, because if we didn't check the clock we'd still be in B.C. where we started.

Chief Gilles O'Bomsawin: You have a purpose to do it.

The Chair: It's no fun cutting people off, but I always say to the presenters, it may comfort you to know that when the minister appeared I had to cut him off twice. So I have to do it to others now.

We'll do a four-minute round. That will allow about three minutes for closing remarks.

Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: As I asked Mr. Norton in the previous presentation--and I'm mindful of the fact that Kahnawake has some development and may be shielded from this legislation, or it appears that's the case--I do want to ask you how far along you are in respect to written codes in regard to leadership selection, administration, management--those kinds of things.

Also, do you have, or are you thinking to have somewhere along the way, a protection for the individual members of your first nation along the lines of the Canadian Human Rights Act? You might term it the Indian human rights act. Have there been discussions? Do you have some local application? Are you talking about that with other chiefs and councils? How far along the way are you? Do you have oral or written codes in respect to administration, management, financial--those things?

Second is the question about the issue of the Canadian Human Rights Act application or some such form of that to protect the rights of individual members in your band.

Chief Gilles O'Bomsawin: If I understand you right--I have a problem hearing--you are asking about the way he wants to fabricate a band council. Is that what you're talking about?

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I'm asking this. The bill talks in terms of leadership selection codes. It talks in terms of the management, administrative, financial, transparency, and so on. Do you have some clear, developed, specific guidelines written out in respect to those things?

Chief Gilles O'Bomsawin: Yes, we do.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: For quite some time now you've had those all written up.

Chief Gilles O'Bomsawin: Right, we have all this written up. The policies and everything we have on our reserve are made out already.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Sometimes as members of Parliament we get, from within the constituency or without, instances where first nations members will come complaining because they have not been properly accorded health education. They have had grievances. Do you have some redress mechanism where people who maybe have a problem with you as chief and council or other issues can get a redress on that, such as an ombudsman? Do you have something like that?

Chief Gilles O'Bomsawin: We have a policy, des politiques, on education, health. They can appeal if they have a doubt that they haven't been justified by their council.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Who is that? Is that somebody appointed by chief and council, or is it independent, at arm's length from the council? True impartiality.

Chief Gilles O'Bomsawin: It's three new persons, independent from the council, who come out to answer the appeal. It does not interfere with the council at all. It does its own work.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Okay.

This is the last question. I want to come back to this. Some feel it would be a good idea to have the full application of the Canadian Human Rights Act so that first nations individuals could have those protections. That is not presently the case. Do you think that would be a good thing?

Chief Gilles O'Bomsawin: I think so. That would protect the individual.

The Chair: I've increased it to five minutes because Mr. Loubier doesn't have a question.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: The other question is this. People have been critical in respect to certain parts of this bill. It talks about very broad policing powers, very broad search and seizure powers beyond what's possible with the RCMP or city police or other forms of policing. I don't know what specific look you've done at Bill C-7. But if you have looked at that part of it, do you have concerns about whether you have local enforcement officers who can then take too many liberties or abuse their power? How do you endeavour to respond to that part of the bill? Have you looked at that part of the bill? Do you have any concerns about the broad search and seizure powers?

Chief Gilles O'Bomsawin: About the public security on our reserve, we have a police formed by the Sûreté du Québec. They follow the same course. They've completed école de gestion and were followed by Sûreté du Québec. They went to Nicolet to complete the course and everything else, so we are a recognized police force in Quebec.

I have my own police force--not my own police force; it's not a police force of the council. It is a police force for the Odanak Band. I am talking strictly about the Odanak Band; I am not talking for Odanaks.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Martin, five minutes.

À (1045)

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you very much, Chief, for your testimony, especially on the last day of our tour. It's interesting to have you reconfirm some of the things we've heard across the country, and the broad opposition to this bill that we've heard across the country.

Starting with your comments on the consultation, many speakers before you have made the point that they believe the consultation was a sham, an absolute farce, and that people came to those meetings with a predetermined list of things. Rather than asking your input about what you would like to see, they said, here's what we have, what do you think about it? Would that be a fair representation of what happened?

Chief Gilles O'Bomsawin: Mr. Nault sent a little booklet, and a lot of suggestions were in there. When you suggest something to somebody, it gives him a different idea of answering a question that he had in his head, which wasn't the same idea you had first of all, because you're suggesting to somebody to say something. It's not the same as if I'm thinking of it myself and coming out with it.

We didn't approve it. We told the people not even to accept these booklets, and most of them didn't. Some of them did, and I'm not against that, because we're living in a free democracy, I hope. We were very agreeable to this. As I said, we met with these people, and they were beautiful people who made a good presentation. It's just the booklet that we didn't approve.

Mr. Pat Martin: A lot of people have made the point that this doesn't meet the test of what constitutes true consultation, because consultation must have some degree of accommodation. In other words, the ideas you bring forward should have shown up within the bill.

Both the Quebec Bar Association and the Indigenous Bar Association have made the point that Bill C-7, when implemented, violates treaty rights and could have the effect of extinguishing some rights. It violates the Two Row Wampum concept, treaties, and section 35.

Would you agree that Bill C-7 as it stands at least infringes upon treaty rights, if not being in direct violation of them?

Chief Gilles O'Bomsawin: I can't think of treaty because we do not have a treaty. We have ancestral rights, which I believe are just as strong.

It does in some way infringe on our rights. They're giving more power to the council and everything else, but we still have to ask Mr. Nault if it's right or not. We always have to consult him at the end, so where does it give us more weight or recognition? It does not give us that anymore.

Mr. Pat Martin: Would you agree it undermines the very idea of self-governance to impose their governance?

Chief Gilles O'Bomsawin: It imposes and suggests what to do again. I will repeat myself because of my old age and everything, but if I suggest to you something that you had not thought of, you might say, yes, I will sell my car because he told me about this.

Mr. Pat Martin: Yes.

How are we doing for time?

The Chair: You have almost two minutes left.

Mr. Pat Martin: Very good.

I guess these are some of the points that have been raised across the country. There's the idea that if the first nations community fails to adopt codes as per Bill C-7, then codes will be imposed upon them by default. This is what offends the sensibilities of a great many of the witnesses we've heard.

Would you also agree that even dealing with codes of governance, etc., would not have been the first priority of the people you represent? If they were asked in a genuine way what they would like to see the Government of Canada do in regard to first nations people in this decade, would their answer have been to tinker with the Indian Act, or would their answer have been something more substantial?

À (1050)

Chief Gilles O'Bomsawin: The Indian Act is overdue, that's for sure. The only thing is, we can't throw the bible away, because there are many pages in there that still protect us.

Mr. Pat Martin: Good point.

Chief Gilles O'Bomsawin: My people may come up with an idea for doing something like the citizens' code, for example. My registrar wanted my people with the backgrounds to decide who we were--if we were Abenakis or not. I would not try to get somebody who was not Abenaki and throw him in just to have a number. I have enough numbers now. I have a social security number, a band number, a licence number. I'm using most of the numbers now.

I don't know if that responds to your question or not--partially.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Ms. Karetak-Lindell is next for five minutes.

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: Just to carry further the membership codes you talked about, you said you know who would be a member of your tribe currently. If someone is appealing a decision made by your council and wants to be part of your community, is there a redress mechanism or appeal process, where their request goes before a group of people to determine whether they could be a member of your community or not? What do you have now for someone who's challenging their membership to your band or your community?

Chief Gilles O'Bomsawin: There was a day when nobody wanted to be an Indian. Now everybody wants to be an Indian. We had people coming in because they had tuberculosis--every Indian has tuberculosis. Well, we don't go for that.

We have information since the 1700s or 1800s on the backgrounds of the back families, the O'Bomsawins, the Panadis, the Wawanolets and everybody else. The priests left backgrounds on the activities and everything else, so we know our people.

We are old enough and educated enough to be honest and not give our native cards to anybody. Indians are coming out of every branch of every tree in the province of Quebec and the states of New England.

I hope that answers your question, but I think we are liable enough and honest enough to know and recognize our own members.

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: But how do you address all of these people who are coming out of the woodwork and who want to be recognized as one? Do you have a registry, or do you have a three-person appeal committee that puts a stamp on this--or however you want to identify these people?

Every group of people has to have some boundaries so they can remain a distinct group of people. For the ones who found out from their genealogy that 300 hundred years ago they might have had a descendant...I'm wondering how you deal with those modern ways that people have now of wanting to appeal and be recognized as such?

Chief Gilles O'Bomsawin: I don't know if I can answer that or not. The registrar knows a lot more on that than I do. I should have brought her here, because she has a background in the genealogies of our people, going quite a way back.

Indian Affairs can also do this in Quebec and in Ottawa, in fact. So if they can do it in Ottawa, we can very well do it at our own place. I'm now talking about employment and justice, because I could employ my own people to do my work, instead of having a first people...and us second people to do what they are doing in Ottawa. I'm not trying to cut any jobs in Ottawa, but I'm trying to know the real facts.

Just to give you a short example, we had someone come up with the same question of sickness, and she said, “Look at my cheekbones”, and everything else. She even wanted to assist at a council meeting. I warned her, “I'll be breaking your heart. You'll be thrown out of the council house, because you're not allowed to assist at meetings.” She said, “I'm native.” Well, she was thrown out. She tried to take us to court on this and she lost, because just because you have cheekbones or dark hair or something like that.... I have hardly any hair, so I wouldn't be a native if I were to go by that.

I hope I answered your question correctly, because this is a defect I have.

À (1055)

The Chair: So in the appeal, did the chief decide that she didn't qualify?

Do you have a three- or a five-person panel to review membership applications? If I apply to be a member of your community and you rule that I don't qualify, do I go to the chief or do I go to a committee or a forum if I wish to appeal?

Chief Gilles O'Bomsawin: No, we have a separate committee. It wouldn't be right for us to judge it, but it would be for completely independent people to judge it.

The Chair: Okay. It didn't come out before that there was a separate entity, but I am glad that we have clarified that.

Chief Gilles O'Bomsawin: On every policy we have, for health, education, and security, we have a different committee for each, to be just.

The Chair: We thank you very much, and we open the floor for you to make closing remarks.

Chief Gilles O'Bomsawin: I will be writing a report on this meeting and be sending it back to the responsible persons in this group.

I thank you very much for the time you took in coming down here. Thank you again.

The Chair: Thank you very much. Merci beaucoup.

[Translation]

I now invite the Honourable Warren Allmand to make his presentation as an individual witness. Welcome, Mr. Allmand. Welcome.

[English]

The Hon. Warren Allmand (Former Minister of Indian Affairs, As Individual): It's nice to see you again.

The Chair: Mr. Allmand, my first question is did you play hockey this winter?

The Hon. Warren Allmand: I have to play later this afternoon.

The Chair: Those are all my questions.

We have 30 minutes together. We invite you to make your presentation, which will hopefully be followed by questions from members.

The Hon. Warren Allmand: Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I come before this committee as a former Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs, a former opposition critic for Indian Affairs, and a member of the Penner commission in 1982 and 1983. I was also a member of the Special Committee on the Constitution in 1981, which adopted section 35. For the past five years, I was president of Rights and Democracy, which had a major program to promote and defend the rights of indigenous peoples.

Over the years, I have learned a lot from indigenous peoples, and consequently I have adjusted my views on these issues. The views I have today are not the views I had 30 years ago. I learned a lot through committee work such as you're doing now. I hope your committee work will help you to adjust your views as well.

I am not here to speak for aboriginal peoples or first nations. They can speak adequately for themselves. I am here as a non-aboriginal Canadian to suggest what our approach should be in dialoguing, sharing, and negotiating with aboriginal first nations.

To begin with, aboriginal first nations were on this continent for thousands of years before the arrival of the Europeans. They were sovereign and had governments, laws, territories, resources, waterways, economies, cultures, languages, and customs. When the Europeans first arrived, the indigenous nations agreed to assist them and to share with them. The indigenous nations never surrendered their sovereignty and their right to self-determination. The Royal Proclamation of 1763 recognized the aboriginal nations on this continent.

The gradual occupation and appropriation of land and unilateral legislation by the European settlers did not extinguish these rights of sovereignty, and so on.

The right of all peoples to self-determination was recognized by the United Nations and the international community in 1966 in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Both of these covenants were ratified by Canada in 1976.

I want to refer briefly to the words in article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, ratified by Canada: “All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development”.

The right of all people to self-determination was recognized in these covenants.

This principle, Mr. Chairman, has been repeated in article 3 of the Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, which is presently under discussion in a working group at the United Nations. This Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People was prepared by a group of international experts over a period of several years in consultation with governments and indigenous nations.

Article 3 of the draft declaration reads as follows: “Indigenous peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development”.

Á (1100)

These principles were further entrenched by the adoption of section 35 in the Constitution Act of 1982, which you are familiar with. The Canadian courts have ruled that the right to self-determination and self-government are included in the words “aboriginal rights” in section 35. So when section 35 recognizes and affirms the aboriginal and treaty rights of aboriginal peoples, it is also recognizing the right to self-determination and self-government of aboriginal peoples.

This was also the conclusion of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples in 1993. They said this is an inherent right. It is not given, nor can it be taken away by the Canadian or any other government.

If we are intelligent, fair, and just, we will acknowledge and recognize that right. But it is not ours to give and take. It was in one of our better moments, I might say, in 1981-82, that we did recognize this right and put it in our new Constitution under section 35.

Consequently, it is constitutionally, legally, and morally wrong for the federal government and the federal Parliament to unilaterally legislate systems of governance for first nations in Canada. To unilaterally legislate a system of governance for first nations in Canada is, in my view, unconstitutional, illegal, and morally wrong. No matter how well intentioned, this approach is wrong and has always had negative consequences.

The aboriginal nations of Canada were not involved in the development of, and never consented to, the Constitution Act of 1867, especially section 91.24. This was unilaterally imposed on them. The same is true of the Indian Act of 1868 and all the amendments since that time. After more than 100 years of such unilateral colonialist and paternalistic legislation, first nations have been decimated, impoverished, and marginalized. It has not been good for them, and it certainly has not been good for us, the non-aboriginal community.

In my view, Bill C-7 should be withdrawn, and the government should approach first nations on a nation-to-nation, government-to-government basis, dealing with the same issues that are contained in the bill. Agreements can be formalized as treaties between nations and, consequently, can be constitutionalized in accordance with the Constitution Act of 1982, subsection 35(3).

Subsection 35(1) says: “The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed”. And then, in subsection 35(3): “For greater certainty, in subsection (1) “treaty rights” includes rights that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired”. So agreements in the future with respect to aboriginal rights will be constitutionalized as well.

If you wish to legislate, the first step should be to more formally recognize the right to self-determination and self-government of aboriginal peoples in accordance with section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982--to recognize the right of first nations to their lands, resources, and waters and their right to ongoing financial compensation for the lands, resources, and waters already taken from them over many years.

We should not be imposing Canadian values on first nations. Both the Canadian government and first nations could agree to fully respect universal values in dealing with each other, such universal values as expressed in the Charter of the United Nations and the International Bill of Human Rights--which includes the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. These are universal values. We should agree to have them apply and follow them on both sides, the Canadian side and the first nations side.

In the meantime, the Government of Canada in its fiduciary role should be doing all it can to assist first nations economically and politically to move ahead in their work of self-determination and self-government. In this way we will be true partners and equitably share in the land, resources, and development of this great and historic continent.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Á (1105)

The Chair: Thank you for your presentation.

We will have a seven-minute round.

Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Thank you, Mr. Allmand.

At this juncture in time, as it's admitted all around that there are problems with the Indian Act and considerable concerns in respect to the problems created over the years, would your view be that we just do a patch job, either in the form of Bill C-7 or something else, or should we just forget that altogether and wait until 10 or 15 years down the road in self-government agreements with all the first nations?

Some are fairly far along the road. Others have a ways to go yet, so it might take 10 or 15 years, or longer. So in the meantime, should we just stay with the Indian Act as is?

The Hon. Warren Allmand: That's a question you should put to first nations. My view is that you have to deal with first nations, nation to nation, government to government. You should not legislate for them. You should not unilaterally legislate.

Á (1110)

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Right.

The Hon. Warren Allmand: So there may be some first nations exercising their right to self-determination who may wish to continue with the Indian Act--that would be their choice--or may wish to continue with something like the governance act, but it all must start with a full recognition by the Canadian government, the Canadian Parliament, and the Canadian people of their right to self-determination and their right to self-governance, and then they will decide and negotiate with you.

I am not going to speak for them and say whether they want it patchwork or whether they want it all now. That's their decision. I'm just talking about the general approach.

The general approach should not be one, as it has been since the beginning, of unilateral legislation imposing laws and types of governance on peoples that have the right to self-determination, which is entrenched in our Constitution. Not only do I think it's wrong; I think it's unconstitutional.

I think if you pass this bill, it's going to be declared unconstitutional, because there is already a court ruling saying the exercise of section 91.24 has to respect section 35 of the Constitution, which means you can't legislate unless you do it on a nation-to-nation, government-government basis.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I would concede that maybe the majority--and in fact, maybe far and away the most across the country--would be in a position to move forward, in a very progressive way, the protection of their band members, their individual rights, and so on. But I think we would be naive if we weren't aware that when you get into power, power can corrupt, and absolute power can corrupt absolutely, so some would want to protect their particular interest as it is right now and may in fact resist. So what do you do in those other situations where there is acceptance in the country, but where some in fact do not want to get up to date in terms of some democratic rights and universal suffrage, universal protection of rights, and so on?

We go into other countries around the world and dole out aid based on whether they are moving in that direction. Why would we have a problem in terms of trying to push forward human rights protection, and so on, democratic kinds of rights, in our own country?

The Hon. Warren Allmand: The risk of power corrupting, and so on, has been present in all governments throughout the world. If you look at the history of Canada, we have had many examples of corruption and bad government and mismanagement at both the federal and provincial levels, many times, and it took a long time to work out a better system.

I don't want to refer to any particular governments in the past, but we know there have been many scandals, and so on.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: So it just kind of works itself out over time for--

The Hon. Warren Allmand: Well, it worked itself out because, as people began to take power into their hands, they demanded accountability and changed those governments. They kicked them out eventually.

As to the second part of your question with respect to human rights, I think the better approach to take is that the two covenants and the universal declaration and the UN Charter are universal values and universal standards. Since we are dealing on a nation-to-nation basis with first nations, it would be better for us, in our approach to them, to say let us both, with respect to each other, give full respect to the universal declaration and the International Bill of Human Rights, rather than saying they're going to come under the Canadian Human Rights Act.

It so happens that some of the provisions in the Canadian Human Rights Act are similar to the International Bill of Human Rights, but I must point out that while Canada has ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, there are no economic, social, and cultural rights in either the Canadian Human Rights Act or in the charter. So we haven't lived up to our obligations in implementing everything we said we would do when we ratified the international covenant.

I was in cabinet when we ratified those two covenants in 1976.

So if you approach it respecting universal values and universal standards.... By the way, the first nations now refer to the international covenants and article 1 on the right to self-determination. So in referring to it and claiming that article, they also respect the other article; and if Canada says, together we will respect those articles, then you have covered the whole thing of human rights without imposing a Canadian statute on them.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Vellacott, I said seven minutes, but it's an error. I thought we had an hour. We only have half an hour. So we're back down to five minutes, which is what you had.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Okay.

[Translation]

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

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Chairman, we should have allocated an hour to Mr. Allmand.

The Chair: Mr. Loubier, there has been some mistake, because we usually give ten minutes to an individual witness.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: You've understood your error.

The Chair: I allowed it; it is not my error.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Allmand, I am pleased to see you again and especially pleased to hear you, because your presentation was full of great wisdom. It was a modern approach and reflects the need to redefine our relations with the aboriginal peoples, and I am nearly tempted to ask you—and this may never happen again in my life—to resume your duties at the Department of Aboriginal Affairs in Ottawa. Perhaps with your cooperation we could make some progress in the right direction.

The Hon. Warren Allmand : As I explained earlier, I learned a great deal during the years I was member and minister. When I started, I did not have the attitude and the knowledge I have now. It is true that I learned a great deal through the dialogues I had with other members of Parliament and with the first nations, especially when I was involved in the Penner Commission.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Your wealth of experience makes us want to go elsewhere and then return to politics because, at the end of the day, you are an improved product. I'm just a little disappointed that there aren't more Liberal colleagues here. I know I'm not allowed to mention it, but I am mentioning it anyway.

Á (1115)

The Chair: Mr. Loubier is committed to supporting all the bills you will table.

The Hon. Warren Allmand: I am still active in politics, but not in a political party. I support political issues, but as a private citizen.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Allmand, you have a great deal of political experience and you have been actively involved in aboriginal issues in Canada. I would like to ask you a question.

How can the federal government remain impassive to UN resolutions and universal rights violations like those Canada has been accused of over the past several years? How can it continue acting as it does in the spirit of the Indian Act? Why can it not evolve in the direction you presented so well, in clear and simple terms, by describing the current situation and what needs to be done?

The Hon. Warren Allmand: It is difficult for me to explain. I have often taken part in meetings of the Human Rights Commission, in Geneva, with the Canadian government. Even if section 35 of the 1982 Constitution Act says “Aboriginal peoples”, with ans...

[English]

At Geneva and in many other forums, the Canadian government, with other governments, first of all, refused to use the term “peoples” because they were afraid it would include aboriginal nations under “all peoples have the right of self-determination”. So they wanted to use terms like “population”, “people” without an s. Finally, they agreed to use the word “peoples” with an s, which is what they have here in article 35. So there is a contradiction.

But when they agreed to use the word “peoples” with an s, they were suggesting another article in the Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which said that the use of the term “peoples” does not include any rights under international law. So they took away with one hand.... But the point is that they have ratified, as you and I point out, the two international covenants, which say all peoples have the right of self-determination.

The courts in Canada have said that when you recognize and affirm aboriginal rights, aboriginal rights include the right to self-determination and the right to self-government. Despite that, there is a difference between some of the policies of the government and what they say in article 35 and what the courts are saying about it.

So I think by proceeding with this legislation as it is, you are going to run into some serious roadblocks in the courts later on. It has already been decided that you cannot, I believe, legislate unilaterally for aboriginal peoples and not respect their right to self-determination and self-government.

The best approach is the approach in Nunavut. We have set up a state, a territory that is self-governing to a certain extent. Greenland is another good example. You should look at that closely, Mr. Chairman. When we were with the Penner commission we went to Greenland. It was very interesting how the Danes brought about self-government for the Greenland people, who are Inuit people.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Martin, five minutes.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you, Mr. Allmand. Maybe you'll get a chance to finish your comments under my questioning. We really appreciate your being here and the very straightforward brief you gave. I'm going to find that very useful. It takes a lot of the information that we've heard from a number of sources, but you do capsulize it very, very well.

I'd like to ask you this. Not only in your view is this possibly unconstitutional or subject to a constitutional challenge and morally and ethically wrong, but do you not agree that it is doomed to fail--to develop a cookie cutter template of codes of governance and impose it upon 633 very diverse first nations communities across the country? Do you not think it a recipe for failure to impose something on people that they neither want nor need? They have made it very clear that they don't want it. Don't you think it's a phenomenal waste of energy and resources to even go this route?

Á (1120)

The Hon. Warren Allmand: Well, that's what they've said. Their opinion is more valuable on this than mine. There are some who seem to favour the legislation, but it appears from the witnesses--I've been reading the testimony--that the great majority have said exactly what you've said, that this won't work, in addition to being subject to constitutional challenge.

When any one people tries to govern other peoples who have had a long histor, with a culture and a sovereignty and so on.... It would be so much in our interests as Canadians to have aboriginal peoples running their own affairs, contributing to the wealth, prosperity, and well-being of Canada.

The examples I was giving are good models. They're on their way. They are not finished their work in Nunavut. I also could refer to the northern Quebec Cree and the northern Quebec Inuit. I put through the legislation as minister, but first it was negotiated nation to nation. It was a treaty to begin with, and then we affirmed the treaty in the Canadian Parliament and they approved through their political system that they agreed with the treaty. So you negotiated a system of governance.

It is up to the aboriginal people themselves to decide whether they want to do it nation to nation or through tribal councils or through federations of nations. They may decide one way or other is better for them. Some may want to go one way and some may want to go another way. But I think it is possible and it's the only way, I think, that would really work. That has to be our attitude.

It goes back to even, as I say, the Royal Proclamation. Something went wrong there around Confederation, when we started overwhelming Canada with immigrants and populations from Europe and started destroying what was originally a good relationship--the Two Row Wampum, those people following their own customs and traditions side by side, helping and sharing.

Mr. Pat Martin: Would you agree on a general level that in fact specifying the terms and the details of the codes of governance and then imposing those codes upon people undermines the very idea of self-governance, which surely must include the freedom to design governance institutions that are suitable and compatible to customs and traditions?

The Hon. Warren Allmand: Yes, I think it is. You had witnesses this morning from the Mohawks. They've had systems of governance for thousands of years and they're returning to them. They're redeveloping them and applying them to modern conditions.

I'm very familiar with Pimicikamak in northern Manitoba. They're doing the same thing. I could give many other examples.

So that's the best way to proceed. Let them sit down government to government and say, look, there are questions of financial arrangements, questions of governance, questions of courts, and so on. They may decide in some cases--I'm sure they don't want to run the post office. There will be many things they'll say are very important to their culture and traditions, and for other things they'll say, we'll accept your jurisdiction on regulating the airline industry or the post office. But the things that are important to them they will continue to claim and use their own jurisdiction. That will be good and they'll do a good job. It's true.

No matter what government, in any kind of democratic state, you're going to have things that go wrong. Look at the history of our own country, look at our neighbours to the south, look at Europe. We've all made horrible mistakes; we've had cruel and terrible leaders from time to time. But the only way you're going to develop is to have the freedom to develop yourself. You can't impose good governance on other people; they do it themselves.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Ms. Karetak-Lindell, five minutes.

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: Thank you very much for your intervention. I was pleased to hear you say that in 30 years your opinions have changed from when you first started thinking about aboriginal rights. Over the past few weeks we have been accused of furthering the 1969 white paper. To hear you say that you have changed your opinion I think will help further the dialogue that people are entitled to change their opinions and they shouldn't be stuck on a white paper in 1969. Personally, as an aboriginal Canadian, I would like to think we have moved further from 1969 as a country. Both aboriginal and non-aboriginal people think very differently about each other, and I take comfort in that.

I want to address rights a little further. I am trying to understand collective rights versus individual rights.

With our land claims agreements I don't think we have fully dealt with how one interprets rights as far as individual rights versus collective rights go. I don't think we have really got our heads around that ourselves, even as aboriginal people. How do we weigh them? Let's say you take Bill C-31 and women, for example, someone whose individual rights have not been addressed versus the collective rights of a community. And you don't have to stick to Bill C-31. But how do we get our head around this, now that with Bill C-7 the human rights charter will apply? We're probably going to be seeing cases before the Human Rights Commission with people who are more used to individual rights being exercised.

How do we ensure that the collective rights of a people will be taken into consideration?

Á (1125)

The Hon. Warren Allmand: The struggle to reconcile collective rights with individual rights is an ongoing struggle. It's not completely settled anywhere, but I should point out that the UN Charter is a good example of where collective rights are recognized, because they recognize the rights of states vis-à-vis states, and states are collectivities.

In the two conventions I referred to--the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights--in article 1 when they talk about the right to self-determination of all peoples, that is a collective right; it's not an individual right. But in the same document they talk about freedom of expression, the right of freedom of assembly. Of course, assembly is groups of people getting together within the community, within the state, so they're individual rights. But they certainly can be reconciled.

There are many cases where there are group rights or collective rights and within them we have individual rights, and they can be carried out without necessarily a conflict, but sometimes they do come into conflict.

My suggestion as a solution is that there may be some first nations who wish, in exercising their self-determination, to opt into the Canadian Human Rights Act, but to me there is a better approach. I always say, even when we are operating internationally, that we should not talk about promoting Canadian values abroad. That scares people in Asia and the Middle East and so on. They say, why should we accept Canadian values? It's much better to say, let us both adhere to universal values, the Universal Declaration on Human Rights; we will, with respect to you, respect the universal declaration and we will apply it with our own people and we expect you to do the same.

So when you make agreements with first nations this is a better approach, because you are not using the document of one or the other. You are using an international instrument that has the same effect and even goes further, because it includes economic and social and cultural rights and deals with things such as the right to food, the right to health, the right to education, which we ratified in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. And it is in the universal declaration, but we don't have those yet. To refer to those documents and say we will fully respect them and we hope that you would fully respect them too, I think, is a better approach--respecting human rights.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We've shown that you can take the politician out of politics, but you can't take politics out of the politician.

We have two minutes.

The Hon. Warren Allmand: I'm a hockey player.

The Chair: That's right, and we want to make sure you'll be on time for your hockey game. We have two minutes, and we're going to stick to it.

The Hon. Warren Allmand: Okay.

Á (1130)

The Chair: That's a fair warning to a real politician, who, when you tell him two minutes, will take five.

Two minutes, sir.

The Hon. Warren Allmand: I've said what I've had to say. I think the approach should be a nation-to-nation, government-to-government approach, with full respect one for the other, both sides respecting each other and respecting international standards--the UN Charter and the International Bill of Rights. By taking that approach, I think we will build together a much greater nation.

The Chair: Hopefully, some day that will come.

The Hon. Warren Allmand: We've made starts on that in James Bay, in Nunavut, and there are other examples, too.

The Chair: Well, if I were a marriage counsellor, from what I've heard in the four weeks we've travelled and listened, I'd say the couples are not very close to reconciliation. So we have a lot of work to do.

The Hon. Warren Allmand: Well, I hope you do it right.

The Chair: Yes. Thank you very much.

The Hon. Warren Allmand: You're welcome.

The Chair: To members and the travel team first, we will not break for lunch. What you see there is your lunch. We will continue, so bring your food as we progress. If there is some left over, we can share it with anyone here.

I now welcome, from the Mohawk Council of Kahnawake, Grand Chief Joseph Tokwiro Norton, of the Mohawk/Canada Roundtable.

Welcome, Grand Chief. We have 30 minutes together. We invite you to make your presentation, and hopefully you will allow some time for questions.

Grand Chief Joseph Tokwiro Norton: Good morning. And it is strictly the Mohawk Council of Kahnawake, not the Mohawk/Canada Roundtable. We had that about two hours ago.

First of all, I would like to again introduce Kaientaronkwen and Billy Two Rivers, who this morning assisted the Mohawk/Canada Roundtable, and our young children who provided us with the greetings in the opening.

Let me thank you for the opportunity to be here representing the community of Kahnawake. It's interesting that it takes us, on a good day, with no traffic or anything of that nature, 10 to 15 minutes maximim to come to the city of Montreal or, as we call it, Tiotiake. We consider this part of the country also Mohawk territory, because our people at one time occupied and lived on the island over here. We have a name for it. We have an understanding of it. And slowly, as the Europeans arrived, we moved to where we are settled now, across the river directly south, and then west up to where Kahnawake sits. The name “Kahnawake” describes a place “at the rapids”.

We consider Montreal a suburb of Kahnawake. Some people may look at that as being a little bit arrogant, but we consider it that simply because we have existed there for so long. Long before Montreal was ever thought of, before it was created and established, we were there.

Having said that, it's important to note that as a result of that, we have found ourselves living in a very strategic location. It's become strategic over the course of time, and as this presentation goes along you'll hear a little bit more about that.

I don't want to take up too much time, because I know there are questions and answers that most of you, if not all of you, have regarding that.

We are on two paths as far as we are concerned--the First Nations Governance Act and what Kahnawake has been doing. As I mentioned this morning in the presentation from the round table perspective--and it's still the same principle--we have developed a tremendous capacity in our community, a legislative capacity, a governance capacity. As we speak, we are stockpiling laws and things that we know are going to become essential and important in the next little while for us to implement in our community, in the social, political, and economic sectors, in order to be able to thrive.

As I mentioned this morning, we cannot and have not survived on the age-old customary ways of living through hunting, fishing, and trapping. We don't have resources. The only resources we have are the millions of people who pass through our community every year. We have about 100,000 people a day who come from the eastern side of the community as well as the western side, along two major highways and a bridge, to come to the city of Montreal. They are the only resources we have--people. We have had to adjust our economy in accordance with that.

A great part of the difference--why we find ourselves at odds with government, be it federal, provincial, municipal; special interest groups; or big business--is centred on and around the economy. We don't have any natural resources, so we have to share that one resource, which is people. And we make no qualms about it. Those people, when they enter our territory, become important customers, clients, partners, alliances, and however else you want to describe them. This is where the divergence comes in.

Á (1135)

I am not here to talk so much about the First Nations Governance Act as I am to talk about Kahnawake and its progress, evolution, and development and where it's going in the future.

We naturally have to look after number one, and we are going to, but at the same time we realize that having strategic alliances and partnerships and relations with our neighbours is very important. It has taken us almost 13 years to rebuild the relationship with the surrounding neighbours. The leadership has changed substantially between the so-called crisis of 1990 and the present time. We mean to build on that relationship in a positive way without sacrificing the very things that have brought us to where we are, our beliefs, our strength, and the right to exercise the things that we feel are essential to us.

We believe very strongly in our traditional customs and in the right to self-determination. We do not want to be imposed upon, and we in turn do not wish to impose upon everybody else. We believe very strongly in sitting at the table and resolving our differences--reconciliation, as it's called. But it has to be done on a level playing field, not sitting across the table from bureaucrats who do not understand or really care whether or not we are successful as long as they are successful in continuing to apply the policies they are entrusted with.

We find that in the last little while there has been a lack of political will to move in any way. We have been good little Indians, so to speak, for about 13 years now. We've bent over backwards at some great political risk within our communities. People have said to us, you're giving up more than you're getting back, or, you're staying at the table and prolonging these discussions but you're not getting anywhere; you've brought back to us nothing of substance over the course of time. I may sound harsh and critical, but I have to be, because this is an opportunity to voice what our feelings have been.

Back home there are 8,000 people across the river from here. It may be a small community in terms of population compared to the three million people who live around us with all kinds of languages, cultures, and beliefs, but we are still a strong voice, and we will continue to be. We have not changed over the course of time. We have remained steadfast in what we believe. We will instill that in the young children you saw make a presentation here this morning.

We have not seen the political will. Yes, we are at the table and we are negotiating. Yes, we're attempting to re-establish a relationship with Canada based on the Two Row Wampum. But it has not been working up until this point. We have not seen the reciprocation coming back our way.

It's very frustrating because it's time-consuming. You put all the effort and sincerity you can into it and all the good intentions and diplomacy you can muster to sit at the table and continue to talk, yet you hear the same bureaucratic bafflegab coming back to you. That makes no sense at all in this day and age.

We are on the move. The people demand from us the things we need to establish in our community, and we are doing that. We are not talking just in terms of a wish list here. We are actually doing things that others have not done or will attempt to do in the coming years.

First nations governance will not apply in Kahnawake, period. We don't see it as having any relevance to us.

I said this morning and I'm going to say again something that I believe very strongly. The Government of Canada has come under a lot of scrutiny and criticism from the Auditor General and the Treasury Board for its activities. We as native people have been victims of that. Yes, there may be some abuses across this country, but what has happened is that the government has used that as a means to implement and impose on us something that is not fitting.

Á (1140)

The majority of our communities across this country, I think it's safe to say, have to work by the seat of their pants, with what little they have, to do the jobs that bureaucrats have hundreds of people to do. Multi-tasking is something that we have become very accustomed to and very good at. Managing moneys in a way that services our people has become a way of life for us rather than having to comply with rules, and regulations, and policies, and reporting mechanisms that nobody else should have to live under. That you have heard, I'm sure, over and over again, but it's worthwhile mentioning. We have broken that mould and we have said, no longer are we answerable to it.

Chief Ray Mitchell said this morning that we are accountable to only one body, and we can only be accountable to one body, and that is our people. That's what we have striven to do in Kahnawake and that's what we have implemented.

The other issue that really concerns me is our growth in the area of economic development. You have said to us, stop doing the things that you are doing, be like us, participate in our economy, do the things that we do, become sophisticated like us. Yet when we do, what do we hear? We hear the doors slamming in our faces, banks closing their doors on us, and all kinds of other things happening that don't allow us to actually develop the way we do. We have to go through so much bureaucratic BS in order to get to programs, which many others in Canada don't have to put up with.

Most of you, if not all of you, sitting here probably know and understand what I'm talking about--the reams and reams of papers, the studies and everything else that you have to go through in order to establish any kind of economic development program or anything. In our community for one year, at the insistence of Industry Canada, we were told, your project.... We had initiated a smart community's proposal for wiring connecting all of our community into the modern technology field in the world. We were told that this was a sound project. After one year they finally turned around and told us, we're sorry, but we cannot accept your proposal. After one year. So what do we do? We look to the private sector.

This really upsets me, because if you look at where we exist, we are in a very strategic location. Canada and Quebec have decided to impose upon us all kinds of infrastructure that services them; for instance, the shipping industry. You have the St. Lawrence Seaway that cuts off five miles of our waterfront. You have major highways, two major highways that go into the United States, and east, and west, and south. You have a bridge that services somebody else. You have hydro-electric installations. You have railways. You have telephone installations, fibre-optic pipeline, a major transfer centre that has been put in our community without our knowledge, which we just found out recently. All of that has been put there with very little return to us, in some instances nothing at all. Nobody tells us that this is here, yet it's put there, and then we find out about it.

Now, we turn around and say, fine, if it's here now we are going to use it to our benefit, just as people have done in the Panama Canal, in the Suez Canal situation, just as they have done in other areas. Courts have said that we have a right, just like anybody else, to go back in time and to look at what has been done to our communities. So we are prepared to do that.

If there is going to be a shipping channel in our community, then we are going to utilize that, or docking facilities. We'll start our own shipping companies or whatever it may be. If there are railways, then, yes, we need to have something that we are going to utilize railways with. If highways are going to continue to be there, then we are going to use those highways for our benefit, etc. If we are going to be prevented from growing economically by corporate Canada, by the government, and rules and regulations themselves, then we have to develop those things internally on our own.

Á (1145)

We have a company right now, Mohawk Internet Technologies, a superior state-of-the art facility that is an Internet service provider, probably one of a kind, the only one in North America that you will see anywhere on native territory. I don't think there is anybody else who has that. We host all kinds of applications internationally. Yet is there any recognition for it? None. Very little. We're talking about developing a technology park. That is the kind of interest we have from so many customers from around the world who want to come to Kahnawake and establish themselves.

Can we get any government help? None. So maybe it's time we say, government, stand aside. If you're not going to come on board with us, then get out of our way. Don't interfere with what we have to do. We will negotiate with who we have to, to establish what we have to, so that we can make the kind of economic impact that we have to in order for our people to survive into the future.

There are many other things, ladies and gentlemen, that we could talk about here this morning, but I realize time is short and I'm starting to get revved up over here and a little bit upset. It's been a while since I've had the opportunity, or have taken the opportunity, to speak in this nature. It has always been very diplomatic. It has always been very nice, kind. We'll stay at the table. We won't upset each other. We won't disagree with each other. If we do, we'll do it very nicely, and we'll go back our separate ways and work on whatever we have to and maybe something will happen somewhere down the road.

But as far as governance is concerned in our community, it is there. There is Mohawk government. We are still tied down somewhat by the Indian Act, but as I mentioned this morning, we consider that also illegal.

The question was asked whether the First Nations Governance Act is illegal. You go right back to the beginning. The whole relationship, which is based on the Two Row Wampum, never spoke about any kind of legislation, any kind of act, being imposed on us. It was a mutually acceptable relationship that we are now trying to revive. We have never let that go.

On the other hand, my younger brothers and sisters, your ancestors as well as this present-day government have forgotten a lot, which they need to be reminded of.

Nai:wen:kowa. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We can do a three-minute round. But I will stick to the three minutes, no more.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I have no questions as I think his message was very clear. Thank you.

The Chair: Monsieur Loubier, pas de questions.

Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: I'd like to use my three minutes.

In the back pages of your brief, Chief, you say that if you were asked to suggest more effective tools of governance, you would recommend two specifics. The way you phrase that implies that you weren't really asked what changes you might like to see in terms of governance codes. The terms were pre-written, and if anything, you were asked your opinion of a predetermined package. You weren't really asked. I'll ask for your comment on that.

But you also suggest at the end that it would be a wise use of public funds perhaps to address these two things. The public funds allocated for ramming Bill C-7 down the throats of people who neither want it nor need it is $110 million per year for five years. We believe that's an incredible low ball, that it could be ten times that amount to impose these things on 633 first nations who don't want it. If they're willing to dedicate this amount of money to impose these codes of governance, could you speak to a better use of that money to address the legitimate points that you raise.

Grand Chief Joseph Tokwiro Norton: I'm glad you pointed that out. I really don't need sympathizers. What I need is supporters. I don't mean that as an insult.

What we see happening is a tremendous amount of money being put into a process that right from the beginning was flawed. The request to participate, the request to give evidence, testimony, recommendations, suggestions, is not something that we consider to be a process that is conducive to actually coming out with the outcome we expect. In other words, this process, as far as we're concerned, is going to go ahead. Government is going to pass it and do what it has to do. Our simple participation in this is to make sure that you understand, from a Kahnawake perspective, here is our position, this is where we're at.

We do, though, take the time and effort to pick up on what you said in terms of the money that is being spent. That money could be used in a lot of different areas and a lot of different ways. There is such a cry right now in this country for major assistance in a number of areas. I'm not going to go into all of them. We have our own shopping list, if you will, of where some of this money, if not all of it, could be used.

Basically, it is a major effort to go across the country to hear from first nations as they've done in the past, but it seems to me the minds are made up and this is going to take place.

I don't want to go as far as saying it's a waste of time, because it does allow individuals such as me and other chiefs to come forward and put on the record our position, but basically I think a lot of money is being spent that could be spent elsewhere.

Á (1150)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Are there any questions on the Liberal side? Therefore, Mr. Bagnell.

Mr. Larry Bagnell: I want to make a couple of quick points. Thank you for your presentation. It was very effective.

On the Internet project with Industry Canada, that has happened all across the country, not just with first nations peoples, so you are not the only people who were frustrated by having a project that didn't get approved.

Could you give me a bit more detail on your suggestion of the first nations relations, the new federal department, and the fact that at least some of these activities are already housed in different places. What would be the specific difference in this department other than moving the responsibility?

Grand Chief Joseph Tokwiro Norton: I would look at it as a consolidation in one particular area rather than having it scattered all over the place. But there has to be a direct link to the Prime Minister's Office so the Prime Minister in turn is a lot closer to this matter than he is at this point in time--or the Office of the Prime Minister, so to speak. Let's take the individual out of it and just take the Office of the Prime Minister and make sure there is a direct link to what's happening in that particular sector.

As for the abandonment of all the things that were said in the red book way back then in terms of initiatives for native people, that can't happen again. What has to happen now is there has to be a sincere effort made. This department, this office that we are talking about, consolidated under one roof, would have the authority to move and to make sure the political will is carried out and is translated into the actual bureaucracy carrying out those directives and those orders, because it's not happening.

Mr. Larry Bagnell: And your second agenda item, the new fiscal transfers, and revenue sharing and accountability for the transfers, what would be the bottom line results if that were implemented?

Grand Chief Joseph Tokwiro Norton: I look at it in several ways. One way in particular is that money is always an issue. Governments want us to take on more responsibility, more duties, more responsibility, and we want that, but we have to have an administrative infrastructure to carry it out. We are not going to accept less to do more, and this is what's been happening over the course of time. So there has to be a basic principle that government would have to accept in terms of the transfer of responsibility to native people in terms of also the finances, the fiscal resources, that have to go with that, because our needs are just as great as government's needs are.

As I mentioned earlier on, we have people who are multi-tasked. We have people who are doing three, four, five, half a dozen jobs, whereas you have a dozen people doing that one job on the government side. So let's try to equalize things over here.

To put it in simple terms, that's the way I'm looking at it.

Á (1155)

The Chair: Thank you very much. And now we invite you to make closing remarks.

Grand Chief Joseph Tokwiro Norton: I don't want to go on too long. Basically, I think my opening remarks and my presentation were adequate, but I'll ask the Kaientaronkwen maybe to finish off and see what he can add to this presentation.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Billy Two Rivers: Thank you very much. I shall try to offer you some insight on how we can make a better relationship between ourselves.

I think it becomes important that we understand each other to the degree that we can. One of the things we can look at is what Chief Norton talked about, the economy.

Many areas of the country are given the opportunity to develop economically by placing the businesses or the corporate areas into municipalities. Well, we don't see any coming into Indian communities. We have the ability and we've proven ourselves capable of working with the modern necessities of computers. We continuously make a reputation in the bigger cities of the United States in building. We're very effective in construction. We have no qualms about our capability in dealing with any kind of modern business that is necessary, but none comes our way. We see them going to different areas.

Part of the work of MPs is feeding their constituencies with job creation. We don't get that in our communities. We seem to be relegated to the limitation of tourism and so on. Chief Norton also speaks about utilizing the population that goes through our communities.

I think the other thing a lot of you have to learn, and also the Minister of Indian Affairs and the Government of Canada, is that we have a lot to offer. We have a lot to offer in terms of coexistence, in terms of recognition and respect toward each other. Because that is the foundation of the Mohawk and Iroquois Confederacy thinking. We are people of peace and we value peace so much that we will go to war to defend it.

In the five hundred years since your arrival, we have always backed up and defended what we have, until we live on today what we term “postage stamps”.

A lot of motivation that moves this country to deal with Indian people is the land issue. The legitimacy of the occupation of our lands has not been settled. What we want to do is to coexist. The term you use loosely is “partnership”. To be realistic about partnership, it should then have something concrete in how it's applied in the words of the red book, the Penner report, RCAP. I think it's important that we begin to walk the talk that comes from government these days.

We're quite capable of dealing with the past to deal with the future. We have a word for you people. We know who you are, and our language tells us, as was expressed by the gentleman here, Pat Martin, I believe. Our language tells us who you are.

You came to this country, and our villages are called Kanatakon. To live and settle down and take occupation of a place is, Ken: en. In our words, to describe you, the first thing we do is put those two words together, Kannada and Ken: en. And when you put them together you get Kanadion.

You are those people who came over here, into our villages. You didn't clear any land. You dwelt among us. We nurtured you. We made you strong and we gave you the ability to live and prosper in this country.

All we ask is to re-establish that equality that we gave you. You were dependent on us. We gave you an equality. Now it's time to change and recognize our contribution to the wealth of this land, and all we want is a fair share of what is rightfully ours.

Wneeweh.

Â (1200)

The Chair: Thank you very much for the presentation.

I now invite, from the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne, Grand Chief Raymond Mitchell.

Grand Chief, we have 30 minutes together so we invite you to make a presentation and also to introduce your colleagues to us, for the record.

Please proceed.

Grand Chief Raymond Mitchell: [Witness speaks in his native language]

First of all, I want to thank you for allowing us the opportunity to speak here. I'll begin by offering warm wishes from the people of Akwesasne.

My name is Raymond Mitchell. I am the Grand Chief of the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne. I am accompanied by Russ Roundpoint, our nation-building coordinator; and our legal person, Micha Menczer. I think he's worked for Akwesasne as long as I've been alive, but that's still debatable.

I'll give you a little bit about the community of Akwesasne. I'll try to keep within the time and stick to what's being presented. If I ad lib I'll be all over the place.

Akwesasne is a Mohawk community located immediately south of the city of Cornwall along the St. Lawrence. We have a population of close to 13,000, which makes us one of the largest first nations in Canada. Further, we have the distinction of being the only first nation that has its community dissected by the Canada-United States international border and also by the Ontario and Quebec provincial borders. As a result, part of Akwesasne is in Canada and part of it's in the United States, and the part in Canada is in both Quebec and Ontario. The resulting jurisdictional nightmare, as we often refer to it, has been the source of ongoing difficulty for both Akwesasne and the governments. However, that's our problem. That's life at Akwesasne. Herein lies the problem with Bill C-7.

If we back up a little bit, in trying to get our message across to government in the past we have invited senior government officials to come to Akwesasne to visit the territory and experience it for themselves. It just amazes me how they are mind-boggled by the number of times we cross the international border going from, say, my house to Russ's house, or from my house to work. They are just amazed by it.

For many years Canada has tried to adopt a one-size-fits-all policy mentality. We've proven and we've told government that this doesn't work for Akwesasne. Once we bring them down and they take a land tour of Akwesasne, they soon come to realize what we're talking about.

Given our jurisdictional uniqueness and the size of the community, Akwesasne doesn't fit into that one-size-fits-all mould. We've been forced to adapt, to make do with the resources we have at hand, and work around external rules imposed upon us. More often than not, they've hindered our efforts.

We've been quite successful, though. During the past 20 years we've worked diligently to shift our community government from being a small administrative unit that provided limited services to our people under the direction of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada to a functional decision-making body that seeks true self-governance and the resumption of Mohawk jurisdiction at Akwesasne.

Akwesasne has taken great pains to ensure that we have transparency and high accountability in our governance and management structures, and our actions in developing instruments of governance reflect this. We'll have more on that from our legal adviser in a minute.

Just to mention a few of the developments at Akwesasne, we have our own Akwesasne voting election regulations, we have an ethical conduct law, together with supporting procedural regulations, an Akwesasne membership code, and an Akwesasne residency law.

We have developed community laws and policies related to conflicts of interest. We have a law enactment process, procedural regulations covering council meetings, a general personnel policy for staff, and a working conditions document for the chief and council.

Â (1205)

I'd like to mention at this point that even though we are chief and council we're not immune to any of these laws and policies we have. At present I am the subject of one of those electoral conduct laws. It is a right for every community member at Akwesasne, if they so choose, to lodge a complaint against council. So when we talk about accountability and transparency, that's a prime example of what we have put in place.

The proposed First Nations Governance Act and its single-minded, one-size-fits-all approach has the potential, in our view, to undo a lot of this work that we have done. When we reviewed the text of the bill, we didn't find the flexibility that we desire and need. Certainly we didn't find the room to accommodate Akwesasne's unique circumstances.

For example, under Bill C-7 we may have to re-pass our Akwesasne voting and election regulations. It doesn't seem to matter that it was the will of the people, the direction of the people, to develop and to pass such legislation.

Consider Akwesasne as an example, where a jurisdictional nightmare has resulted in a situation where one full third of the membership resides in New York State, in the United States of America. This is obviously quite different from the situation of most first nations communities where “off reserve” means you're only referring to people who live 100 miles away in a major Canadian city.

If we were to draw comparative parallel action to the Government of Canada, it would be the addition of one-third more seats in both the Senate and the House of Commons, but these seats would be controlled only by Democrats and Republicans from the United States. That's our situation.

As we sit here today making this presentation, it's important for you to understand that we are not advocating denial of rights to anyone or creation of a second class of citizenship. Actually, it's quite the contrary. We do work very closely as one community. It's quite common to see the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne, the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe, and the Mohawk Nation Council of Chiefs sitting together and working on common issues that are going to affect our community.

I will give you an example. When we learned of the Organization of American States protest, it was put on the Internet that if you weren't allowed or you didn't think you would be able to come through customs legally, come to Akwesasne; we will get you across, bypassing customs. That generated a lot of activity within the community, and I'm quite proud to say it was the community that brought the three councils back together, and we addressed the issue. We could have easily sat back and let the OPP and the RCMP handle the situation, and the outcome would have been exactly what the protesters wanted. It would have been a fight at the customs building, which is located in Kahnawake, on the Ontario portion of Akwesasne.

What we did at the time was to have our Akwesasne Mohawk Police, which governs the Canadian portion, and the St. Regis Mohawk Tribal Police, which governs the U.S. portion, work together. We even drew assistance from our sister communities of Kahnawake, Kanesatake, and Kaniengehaga. We even went one step further and asked the OPP for assistance, not in the way they are accustomed to assisting, but lending us first nations constables--both the OPP and the RCMP--and we accommodated the protesters.

We didn't give them what they were looking for. Our officers actually walked them over the bridge, walked with them. The first officers they encountered were not the OPP or the RCMP; they were Mohawk police officers. I think that really surprised them.

Â (1210)

We had the community come out, because in Kahnawake, as Chief Norton mentioned, we have the resource of people, but we have the location. We have the Seaway International Bridge corridor, which travels north and south right through the centre of Kahnawake, and when this happened, the community came out in support of the police efforts. The protestors were told, you're going to go through here quickly and peacefully; we can't stop you, but you will abide by the rules of the community.

To make a long story short, in the end it was a great success. We still get compliments from both Canada and the province for how it was handled. By letting the Mohawks take control, it came to a peaceful resolution. It gave both police agencies a new way of doing business or a new way of thinking.

Earlier on, at the time of the Corbiere decision, we did a survey in the community called the Akwesasne Election Code Survey. Questions included the topics of voting for members living in the United States and for those members residing off reserve but in Canada. Survey subjects were randomly selected from the U.S. and Canada. The survey results indicated that a majority of Akwesasne members, including those living in the American portion of the community, did not feel that members living off reserve should be allowed to vote in community elections. The common reason cited for this position was that they have an election process to participate in, and just as they do not want to be part of the elections of the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne, they do not want Akwesasne residents from Canada to participate in tribal council elections. The survey also showed that a clear majority of the Akwesasronon are of the opinion that Akwesasne should decide our election process, free of external pressures from Canada. Again, this is not in line with Bill C-7, but it is the position of the Mohawk people of Akwesasne. This is the direction we intend to follow.

I will defer some of the comments and highlights to Russ, but I just want to conclude that the bottom line is that we are the only people who are going to determine our future—which we have shown we have the capacity to do—our mode of governance, and the laws that govern the Mohawks of Akwesasne. The self-governance of Akwesasne is a burden that should be removed from Canada. It is time to resurrect the path of true partnership called for in the Kaswentha, commonly known as the Two Row Wampum Belt. As I pointed out this morning, the essence is seen in a picture of the belt, which is in a book that I'm going to leave you. As I said earlier, it is peaceful coexistence. You see two parallel rows: one is for the native, and another is for the non-native. They go together but they do not interefere with each other.

With that, I would like to extend an invitation to the panel to come to Akwesasne to talk to us, to look at our situation, to get a feeling for our situation. You will soon come to realize why we say that we can't fall under government's mentality of one-size-fits-all, because it's not going to fit for Akwesasne.

Not to repeat everything that Chief Norton said, but we have the same economic hurdles as our sister communities. The St. Lawrence Seaway project comes right through our territory, but we get all of its bad effects and no benefits from it. We get a lot of erosion of all of our islands. As I mentioned before, we have the St. Lawrence International Bridge cutting right through the centre of Cornwall Island. It has a toll booth that runs into Akwesasne. Again, it's an economic hurdle.

With that, I want to turn it over to Russell Round Point and to our legal counsel to add more to this.

Mr. Russell Roundpoint (Mohawk Council of Akwesasne): Thank you, Grand Chief.

I recognize that the time is very short, so all my comments will be brief.

Akwesasne has developed an excellent and proven track record in terms of accountability and transparency to the community in our pursuit of self-governance. I think we have gone well beyond what is called for in Bill C-7, but the fact remains that Bill C-7 is not a document or a piece of legislation that is supportive of first nations self-governance.

We did all of this work over 20 years to develop the community, and it's not a coincidence that over those 20 years, when we really asserted our jurisdiction and our authority, the developmental curve went almost straight up. That's because the people of the community have ownership of some of the things we're doing, and as a result there is more effort and more pride. Mistakes are bound to happen, but we learn from them, and we progress.

Then Bill C-7 comes along, and it looks to undo a great deal of this. Frankly, it is quite disturbing to many of the residents in the community. The booklet we're leaving with you is an example of some of our reporting to the community. When they got this, the questions came in: What is Canada trying to do to us? Why do we have to do things and then allow them to catch up to us? Do we have to wait for them again?

We are saying to them, no, Bill C-7 should not apply in Akwesasne. Again, it's like hitting a finishing nail with a sledgehammer; it just can't be done cleanly. As a result, we are resisting and saying that Bill C-7 should not be forced on Akwesasne. It just doesn't fit the way we do things.

Again, I will state that we have proven ourselves in terms of accountability and transparency. As Grand Chief Norton presented earlier, there are problems in the community, but you should not punish the entire country for the small pockets of abuse that may exist across the country. I believe we are certainly an example of where one size definitely does not fit all. We need to take our own approaches to achieve the successes we have had in the past and to continue the development.

In terms of economic development, every time we turn around there's a hurdle in our way. We have developed an industrial park in Akwesasne, or at least we're attempting to do so. We're not able to conclude leases with the potential businesses that would locate there. We have a large water-bottling plant, the largest in the world on native land, and yet they have continual difficulties, even with contracts in hand, accessing the resources they need from financial institutions.

So every time we turn around there seems to be another door we have to get through in order to be successful, and I don't believe Bill C-7 will open these doors.

We actually view this as an opportunity lost. There was general agreement by first nations leadership and government officials that the Indian Act needed to be changed, and now this has been done unilaterally, without the participation of first nations. We could have indicated what type of changes we needed, nation by nation.

With that, I would like to conclude.

Wneeweh.

Â (1215)

Mr. Micha Menczer (As Individual): Just very briefly, committee members, I want to highlight two or three points that my colleagues have already made.

First, the grand chief spoke about elections. As you're aware, the First Nations Governance Act does require those with custom elections to repass them in the manner you've set out in the legislation. The grand chief was highlighting that the goal of this is to allow people to have a voice, to allow all members to have a voice, which is perhaps a laudable principle. However, if you look at the map attached to the presentation, you'll see that Akwesasne involves five jurisdictions--Ontario, Quebec, Canada, the United States, and the state of New York.

About 2,500 members of Akwesasne, voting members, live in the American portion of Akwesasne. They're status Indians and members of Akwesasne. They would have a right to vote under this legislation. As the grand chief was saying, they currently have their own tribal government, one that they vote for, so in effect you're giving these persons two votes.

So the goal of ensuring that everyone has one vote would at Akwesasne result in some having two votes, which would certainly throw the balance completely out of whack and not meet those purposes. And yet the bill has no flexibility in this regard.

I have two other small points. There already are a lot of institutions at Akwesasne for governance. Boards of education, a police commission, a disputes tribunal, an appeals tribunal, the Mohawk court, a 24-member police department--they're all there. There are laws and there are institutions.

Maybe what I'm suggesting is that this is going about it in a reverse way. A better approach might have been to come to such first nations as Akwesasne--and you've heard from Kahnawake along with others from across the country--that have established their own accountability mechanisms, their own governance mechanisms, and look at what's there, look at what has worked, and perhaps from that build legislation that works more in harmony with it as opposed to coming in with a package.

As a last comment before questions, it's all about recognition. As I'm sure you've heard across the country and today, it's about recognition of first nations and the best manner in which to do that. It's about addressing the issues they've brought to the table. I think that's what the chiefs are asking.

Thank you.

Â (1220)

The Chair: Thank you.

If I may allow myself a small question, which I don't do often, you say that we should visit and look at what is happening there and then develop legislation. We have been told that this community has gone beyond what is in Bill C-7. How can you not support what is in Bill C-7 if your community has gone beyond it?

Grand Chief Raymond Mitchell: The invitation was to come over and discuss with us why our feeling is that.... In the past we said, we're just going to do it. As we said earlier, our view is that Bill C-7 will undo everything we've done.

The Chair: It will undo it.

Grand Chief Raymond Mitchell: A prime example is a lot of our community laws. We tried at the time to follow the INAC policy. We submitted them as Indian Act bylaws, but they were rejected. The community gave us the direction that we needed these laws. At that point we said, we can do it anyway. We registered all our community laws with our traditional council, the Mohawk Nation Council of Chiefs. We will continue to go in that direction. The community has basically told us that if this is going to undo what we have done, we don't want any part of it. The slogan was taken from the Mohawk people, that we're just going to do it.

The Chair: Thank you very much. That's very helpful.

Mr. Russell Roundpoint: If I might add--

The Chair: I'd like to go quickly because I don't want to take all the time--

Mr. Russell Roundpoint: I wanted to answer one of your questions. We go well beyond Bill C-7 in terms of accountability and transparency. But Bill C-7 does not take into account the way in which we do things. It's going to force us into a mould. It's going to create more problems than it solves.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Next is a four-minute round.

Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you.

I'm looking over the booklet you gave to us, and I find it to be very useful. It must be very helpful to the people you represent in that it not only outlines the legal opinion of the bill and then the bill itself, but it also includes what other organizations across the country are saying. You're providing a good service to the people you represent by giving them such a comprehensive picture of what this bill is going to do to them.

I recently visited a first nation in northern Manitoba on my own. I asked them their opinion of the FNGA, and they said, we don't know anything about it. So I gave them a copy of it. They said, we've seen the bill, but we don't know anything about it. In other words, right across the country people are not only frustrated that it doesn't apply to them, but they really haven't had time to digest the full impact of this on the way they govern themselves.

This comprehensive approach is really useful. Maybe that's what the government should have done at the very beginning.

You've focused your energy on nation building for the past 15 to 20 years, or whatever the figure was. That has been your priority. What, if anything, do you think the FNGA has to do with your nation-building process? Will it be an assistance or a hindrance? Could you speak to that briefly.

Grand Chief Raymond Mitchell: Just briefly, I would look at it as a hindrance. As I said earlier, we've come a long way. Russ has mentioned how far we've gone with regard to accountability and transparency. We are accountable to our people. In our nation-building process that's the direction we're taking. To couple that with the FNGA in the way it's being presented is just going to take us back 60 years, in my view.

Mr. Pat Martin: Would you also like to comment on that, Mr. Round Point?

Mr. Russell Roundpoint: Yes, sir. Akwesasne views governance as an exercise where the people express themselves. If you read the booklet, you will notice that there is no pressure applied to the people to assume any opinion one way or the other on the FNGA. It was only after the people got to look at the material that they came back and told the government how they should respond. That's just an example.

We find that the FNGA does not respect that type of approach. It is a process that has been developed externally to us and is now going to be superimposed on us. It will go against many of the exercises we've gone through.

The election process may be totally turned upside down. For example, we're having elections this summer. If we follow the Akwesasne election code as written, there surely could be challenges under Corbiere. Of course, the Government of Canada is going to come along and say that the election is not valid.

It is going to throw services up in the air. It is only detrimental to the people in the community. So we don't see what Bill C-7 is going to achieve on our behalf. A person from the community said, do we have to wait for Canada to catch up again? We're saying, no, we shouldn't have to.

Â (1225)

Mr. Pat Martin: Good point. Thank you.

The Chair: Ms. Karetak-Lindell.

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: I think you have covered a bit of what I was going to ask you about, namely Corbiere and its implications. Let's say that a person decided that they wanted to vote in your elections even though they live off reserve. What would be their appeal process, or how would you handle someone who wants to exercise their right to vote?

Mr. Russell Roundpoint: There is a process in the election code detailing the appeal mechanism. They develop their appeal in writing and submit it to our justice department, and it is heard from that point onward.

As for whether or not we are going to be looking at the Corbiere issue, I do not believe that the Supreme Court envisioned a situation where members of a first nation normally residing in the United States as their principal domicile will have much of a say in the governance of a first nations community in Canada—although we hate to distinguish the line at Akwesasne. But it's a technicality that could play major havoc with the community, and it's something that we think should be clarified before June.

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: Okay.

As a community, have you asked for a legal interpretation of the Corbiere decision when the issue concerns two countries?

Mr. Micha Menczer: Maybe I could help on this.

There are lots of questions about Corbiere. The concern is to allow for input from those who live off reserve, but within that there is a lot of shading. Akwesasne has a lot of mechanisms for that input that may not necessarily involve voting per se. Corbiere doesn't talk about the right to vote for the chief, it may not talk about who runs, and it may not talk about who nominates, so there are other questions.

I think the point is that Akwesasne isn't looking in its election rules to exclude people or to give undue weight to those living in the United States, which is just across the river. So there is very active participation and there is already a government in place. With the committee process and the survey, a review of the election code is now underway to accommodate the true interests at stake, not the narrow words of the court judgment—though it's terrible for a lawyer to say this. They have done this through a lot of mechanisms.

Mr. Martin asked what the problem is. I think the problem is that if the government's bill were passed, it would make a lot of Akwesasne's actions illegal, including the elections and the complaints board. Akwesasne has mechanisms to deal with appeals. There is an appeal tribunal or a council of elders, but the bill refers to the minister's discretionary power to intervene. Akwesasne has signed agreements with Canada on health transfers, which are different in having buffer zones of mediation before the minister can intervene. These are overridden by the bill.

All of these elements will make Akwesasne's efforts to have stronger, accountable, transparent governance illegal under the act. The problem is that there is no flexibility, just minimum standards, rigidity in the complaints board, and the minister's power to intervene. All of these things would make Akwesasne's actions illegal. This is the problem.

The Chair: Thank you very much. We we invite you to make your closing remarks.

Grand Chief Raymond Mitchell: I just want to thank the panel for allowing us to make this presentation. I guess we are going to take the same stance as our other Mohawk communities, that the First Nations Governance Act will not apply to Akwesasne. We have to go forward to provide for our own people, and we will be accountable and transparent to our own people.

Â (1230)

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

[Translation]

I now invite Chief Rosario Pinette from the Conseil des Innus de Sept-Îles et de Maliotenam to take the floor.

Welcome, Chief; we will spend 30 minutes together. We invite you to introduce your colleagues to us.

[English]

Do you want me to address you in English?

[Translation]

Chief Rosario Pinette (Sept-Îles and Maliotenam Innu Council) : In French.

The Chair : We invite you to introduce your colleagues and to proceed immediately with your presentation. We will be together for 30 minutes; let's hope you will leave us a little time for questions.

Chief Rosario Pinette: [Witness speaks in his native language].

Good afternoon everyone. I am happy to be here before the committee and proud to be speaking on behalf of the Uashat mak Mani-Utenam community.

I am accompanied today by my main advisor from the band council, Mr. Conrad Sioui, by our legal council, Mr. David Schulze, and by Ms. Lysane Cree, who is articling with Mr. Schulze. That covers our team members who are here today.

The issue of Uashat mak Mani-Utenam governance will have rather important impacts.

I will start with a brief overview of the community in terms of governance, and I will also cover the proposals that the government intends to make with regard to the bill.

First of all, I want to clarify that the issue of governance had already been raised before the debate on the topic took place, two or three years ago. The minister decided to put in place legislation that could provide a framework for the financial management of bands, elections, as well as communities' legal status. All of these issues and more were debated very early on in the history of the Uashat mak Mani-Utenam community. We had to discuss them among ourselves, and we did so by way of a conference in 1988-89.

At that time, people in our community expressed the desire for greater transparency on the part of the council. They wanted decisions on expenditures, among others, to be more transparent. People had even expressed their opinion on the land-claims issue, the negotiations, as well as on these major issues that our community is facing; that also included Bill C-31 and everything surrounding the Corbiere decision. Our people addressed these issues very clearly in 1988-89.

I remember that at the time, I was facilitating workshops as part of this broad consultation launched by the council. Economic development, the placement of children in aboriginal communities, the Youth Protection Act, and health care issues were on the agenda.

Â (1235)

I can tell you that the people wanted the debate on all of these major issues to focus on customs, traditions and respect, which would enhance quality of life. That remains the case, and is even clearer today.

At the time, that required the council to be very open-minded. As you know, the conditions linked to transfers from the federal government to manage programs and services are already very clearly defined. Very often, the framework used to manage communities blatantly disregards Innu culture as regards finances, elections, legal matters, the communities' legal status and education.

I would say that we are still a long way from what the people want to be able to recognize themselves. At present, our community has over 700 people on social assistance. This is common in most communities.

I am not sure if you know where Uashat mak Mani-Utenam is. There are two communities joined under a single authority, the band council. Uashat is surrounded by the city of Sept-Îles. Mani-Utenam is in the suburbs, about 14 kilometres from the city. The population is approximately 4 000. About 500 people are off-reserve members; a significant number of these people regained their status through Bill C-31.

These details give you an idea of the socio-economic situation in our community.

Seven hundred people on social assistance is a lot. The city next to us has an unemployment rate of 7 or 8%. When the rate hits 10%, they call the premier and the discussions are neverending. In my opinion, if they were in our community, they would spend their lives on the phone.

But regardless of that, I see that in addition to having to manage issues affecting the daily lives of our people, we must also look at what is happening regionally and nationally.

I feel somewhat pressed for time, and I am trying to describe the situation as clearly as possible so that the government does not misinterpret the willingness of Uashat to be more accountable to its people, to better protect its language and culture, to promote the development of the community and its economy throughout the vast territory of the Uashat mak Mani-Utenam Innu nation, both on the industrial and commercial level. I am referring here to activities in primarily urban environments.

Â (1240)

In Uashat mak Mani-Utenam, huge changes have taken place. After 1988-89, after the broad public consultation and the genuinely democratic exercise carried out by the band council at the time, the population came out of the discussions confident in the future. Despite the high levels of children in care, high school dropout rates and all the seemingly catastrophic problems, the population was confident coming out of those meetings.

The population felt that it had a blueprint for its future that it had designed itself. It was not the Indian Act that had imposed this on the community. It was not the Attikamek-Montagnais Council that had asked the community to do this. It was not the Assembly of First Nations. It was a community initiative. So the committee felt that it was prepared to reach agreement, to discuss issues, to dialogue and to exchange views on the major issues that I have already listed. That is not an exhaustive list; there have been other problems. So the population was very happy.

But after 1990, things did not go the way we wanted. There was a change of council. Another chief was elected. The new chief had his own priorities, his own way of seeing things and working, and, of course, his own team. That upset the plans, and at the same time we had a huge debate about the SM-3 dam project, which was the Sainte-Marguerite-3 dam built by Hydro-Québec in our region. The whole debate about the dam created tensions in the community. Some people were in favour of the dam and some people were against it, and there was heated debate. A major social crisis occurred in the community, and there was even physical violence between the two clans. The council took a position in favour of the project. It defended the people who wanted the dam, those who were really hoping for economic spinoffs. But people were also worried that the dam would have major environmental impacts on the surrounding area.

So all these things happened, and there was a lot of nepotism in the new administration. For example, one executive director invited his wife to work at the school, and another one, who was not aboriginal, invited his uncle to have business dealings with the band council. He has invited a lot of his relatives to do business with the band council, which is legal but scandalous. Moreover, that person is a former Indian Affairs employee, and so he knows the network to some extent and has contacts, and knows what has to happen and what he can get away with. There are other people who come to the band council because they see that our elected members are very tolerant in the face of certain irregularities, and repress those who oppose their authority and leadership.

Â (1245)

During these dark times in our history, many people who opposed the council and criticized these things were imprisoned.

During this period in the history of our community, our people tried to defend themselves despite everything in an effort to try and get the council to listen to reason. We told the council that there was no reason to serve injunctions for the next 100 years against the entire population, because someone made a comment that could be construed as being critical of the chief or another council member. People were constantly afraid of being imprisoned, because injunctions carried a certain amount of weight. The slightest wrinkle was out of the question. Everything had to be in order in the morning and very respectable.

Those were very difficult times for us, and we still remember them today. We must rebuild everything today, because of what happened at that time.

There is something important here to consider. Back when people wanted to denounce these situations, delegations called for meetings with the minister. Meetings with the Assembly of First Nations were in fact held and assistance was sought in an effort to get the council to listen to reason and adopt a more democratic approach to its work. But the situation remained very difficult until 1998.

Following all of these incidents, the winds of change blew strong in 1998. The people turfed all members of the former council out of office and brought in a whole new team. However, I won't deny that the people held us to account. They wanted to know why they had been so repressed and they asked us to investigate the events that transpired between 1990 and 1998. The felt that something must surely have happened for the council to be so repressive. The new council did what was asked of it and investigated. Since people wanted to know more about what had happened during that period, we retained the services of an independent firm from outside the region to ensure the neutrality and the transparency of this exercise in good governance that we wanted to carry out.

The investigation subsequently uncovered certain administrative irregularities. Many of the things that occurred were legal, albeit outrageous. The people have no recourse in this regard, and we cannot turn back the clock, but the exercise enabled the council to take note of these situations and to remedy them. These irregularities enabled us to discover, among other things, that the community needed a major financial recovery plan.

We are still in the recovery phase, but the end is in sight. It has not been easy. Over the past 18 months, the community has sacrificed $5 million in public funds. That is a very large amount for a community like Uashat mak Mani-Utenam, but the community was able to make this sacrifice to pave the way for a better future.

Â (1250)

The council is currently working on a community recovery plan, a transition plan between the remedial plan and what the future may hold for us.

The main idea behind that is to tell the government what happened in Uashat. I would never dare speak for other communities, only for my own. My council has been responsible, accountable to the people, and transparent, in an effort to meet the standards of good governance in accordance with values based on healthy democracy, customs and community traditions.

As a community, we expect good governance from our future councils and respect for values and traditions.

Basically, the governance project Minister Nault wants to propose is, in my opinion, very simple. It involves recognizing the values of good governance, in accordance with communities' traditions and customs. There are over 600 bands in Canada, and we are all different.

Consider the following striking example. We have an Innu community in Les Escoumins, on the western border of the vast Innu territory, with a population of about 300, and we have another community called Saint-Augustin-Pakuashipi, which is on the eastern border of the Innu territory. These two communities are totally different, not the same at all.

Moreover, I pointed out in a letter that I sent to the National Council of the Assembly of First Nations and that was read, that if changes were forthcoming, the values dear to each first nation community would need to be respected. I also made that position very clear to the regional office of the Quebec Ministry of Indian Affairs.

You want to resolve an issue, but the issue that you want to resolve is not as simple as that. The matter must be given more thought. On one hand, we have negotiation tables, and on the other, a governance bill. Mindful of the fact that we are not appointed for life, we want to be certain that the governance we put in place is safeguarded, but not just in any way. I certainly do not want to give you the impression that Uashat mak Mani-Utenam speaks on behalf of the entire Innu nation. I am but one voice. I have but one vote. I can speak only for my community, and not for others.

Moreover, in the documentation we have provided, you will find the brief that we are tabling with your committee today, as well as the brief that we tabled in Quebec City on the agreement in principle between the Mamuitun and the Nutashkuan first nations and the Government of Quebec. In that submission, we summarize the principles underlying governance in our community, principles that will continue to guide us in respecting our traditions and customs.

Thank you. It was important for me to do my best to explain our situation to you. This is our reality in Uashat mak Mani-Utenam, not some other community's reality. We are now ready to answer any questions you may have.

[Witness speaks in his native language].

Â (1255)

The Chair: We have three minutes left.

[English]

Are there members who want to ask a quick question? We have three minutes in total.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: The chiefs are all telling us that everything is very nice and they've accomplished much of what the bill is advocating. In other words, as you've said already, these things have been happening on their reserves for over 10 years.

What guarantee is there that they will prevail, when chiefs come and go and they often operate in a different style? They could destroy what you have already implemented with your policies. There is no guarantee whatsoever, even in your policies, that the good things will prevail and be there forever.

[Translation]

Chief Rosario Pinette: Is the Canadian government prepared to recognize at this point in time the Uashat mak Mani-Utenam constitution? Is the Canadian Constitution prepared to protect the Uashat mak Mani-Utenam constitution, which was drafted to respect customs and traditions as regards financial issues, land claims, education, health care, social services and employment? Is the Canadian Parliament prepared, through its Constitution, to recognize the constitution of the Innu from Uashat mak Mani-Utenam?

I do not know if that is the best answer to your question, but that is the question that I would like to put to Canada's Parliament.

The Chair: No one here can answer that question, because we are not the government. We are not accountable to the minister or the Prime Minister, but to the House of Commons. However, it is a valid question.

Thank you very much for your presentation. That completes this section.

I will now give the floor to Frank Craddock, who is appearing as an individual.

· (1300)

[English]

I invite, as an individual, Frank Craddock.

He's not here.

[Translation]

I invite anyone who wants to make a spontaneous two-minute presentation to do so. I am referring to people who have not yet presented and who will not have an opportunity to do so. Does anyone want to make a presentation?

The committee will therefore resume its proceedings tomorrow at 9 :30 a.m. in Room 269 of the West Block. You have already received the agenda.

The meeting is adjourned.