AANR Committee Meeting

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

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

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

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, February 11, 2003

1035

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

Ms. Jane Orion Smith (Chair, Canadian Ecumenical Justice Initiatives (Kairos))

The Chair

Ms. Jane Orion Smith

Mr. Ed Bianchi (Aboriginal Rights Policy Advocate, Canadian Ecumenical Justice Initiatives (Kairos))

1040

Mr. Carl Rausch (Chair, Aboriginal Rights Committee, Canadian Ecumenical Justice Initiatives (Kairos))

Sister Dorothy Moore (Canadian Ecumenical Justice Initiatives (Kairos))

1045

The Chair

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

Sister Dorothy Moore

Ms. Jane Orion Smith

Mr. Carl Rausch

1050

The Chair

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

The Chair

Ms. Jane Orion Smith

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.)

1055

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Carl Rausch

The Chair

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

Sister Dorothy Moore

1100

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

Mr. Carl Rausch

Mr. Yvan Loubier

Mr. Carl Rausch

The Chair

Mr. Ed Bianchi

Ms. Jane Orion Smith

1105

The Chair

1130

The Chair

1135

Chief Hammond Dick (Kaska Tribal Council)

1140

1145

The Chair

1150

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief Hammond Dick

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief Hammond Dick

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief Hammond Dick

The Chair

Chief Hammond Dick

1155

The Chair

Chief Hammond Dick

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief Hammond Dick

1200

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

Chief Hammond Dick

Mr. Yvan Loubier

1205

Chief Hammond Dick

The Chair

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

Chief Hammond Dick

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell

Chief Hammond Dick

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell

Chief Hammond Dick

1210

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell

Chief Hammond Dick

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief Hammond Dick

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

1215

Chief Hammond Dick

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief Hammond Dick

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

Chief Hammond Dick

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, Lib.)

Chief Hammond Dick

1220

Mr. Rick Laliberte

Chief Hammond Dick

Mr. Rick Laliberte

Chief Hammond Dick

Mr. Rick Laliberte

The Chair

Chief Hammond Dick

1225

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources

NUMBER 024

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, February 11, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

À (1035)

[English]

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

I welcome today Jane Orion Smith, chair of Canadian Ecumenical Justice Initiatives; Ed Bianchi, aboriginal rights policy advocate; Carl Rausch, chair of the Aboriginal Rights Committee; and Sister Dorothy Moore of the Aboriginal Rights Committee. I invite you to start your presentation right away so I don't take up any of your time.

Who will start?

Ms. Jane Orion Smith (Chair, Canadian Ecumenical Justice Initiatives (Kairos)): Thank you.

We appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today as Kairos. For those who are not aware of it, Kairos is an initiative of the Canadian Christian churches together. We do our ecumenical social justice work collectively. For the last 20 to 25 years we've been doing work on aboriginal affairs issues under the mandate of the Aboriginal Rights Coalition and Project North. This work is now taking place through Kairos, which was formed two years ago when we brought 11 ecumenical coalition social justice pieces of work together under one house. Kairos is based in Toronto and in Ottawa.

The Canadian churches and religious organizations that form Kairos are deeply concerned about Bill C-7 in and of ourselves and through the partnerships we have with aboriginal peoples across Canada. We believe that Bill C-7, the First Nations Governance Act, perpetuates an historically discriminatory and paternalistic federal policy that has impeded aboriginal efforts to promote and protect their inherent and treaty rights and has led, in the opinion of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, to the social and economic displacement and marginalization of aboriginal peoples in Canada.

Maybe I'll just note that we have a submission here that's available in English. We don't have the French translation, partly as our date was moved up a couple of days and we didn't have time to prepare that, but it is available for those who would appreciate a copy now.

Each of us is going to speak to a separate part of our submission.

The Chair: We have a rule that we don't distribute it unless it's in both languages, but we will translate it and make sure that everyone gets a copy.

Ms. Jane Orion Smith: Thank you, that's appreciated.

Section 35 of Constitution Act provides that “The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.” RCAP confirmed that the right of self-determination is an existing right under section 35, a right that empowers first nations people to enact the kinds of legislative measures that are proposed in the bill.

Recently, in the Campbell decision, the B.C. Supreme Court upheld the existence of an inherent right of self-determination, and other Canadian courts have likewise agreed that protecting the right of self-determination is one of the purposes of section 35.

We believe that by enacting laws on behalf of aboriginal people and imposing a one-size-fits-all approach, the government is undermining the right of self-determination with Bill C-7. By this we mean mainly the right of aboriginal peoples to realize their aspirations as peoples and nations, to be distinct in terms of language, traditions, and spirituality, to be the architects of their own futures, to have an adequate land and resource base, and to control their lands and their resources. To our mind, Bill C-7 undermines that right of self-determination. It implies that first nations' rights are not inherent but in fact flow from the Government of Canada, and that is certainly something we contest. We think it's particularly instructive that the word “Constitution” does not appear in Bill C-7; there's no reference to it.

And finally, given that the new legislation will apply to all first nations excepting those who have signed first nations self-government agreements, Bill C-7 could constrain the rights of first nations presently negotiating with the federal government, particularly where those treaty negotiations include issues of governance.

Mr. Ed Bianchi (Aboriginal Rights Policy Advocate, Canadian Ecumenical Justice Initiatives (Kairos)): I'm going to talk a bit about federal policy. I'm sure you all remember 1969 and the white paper on Indian policy that was released by the then Minister of Indian Affairs, Jean Chrétien, when Prime Minister Trudeau was in power. The white paper called for the elimination of the Indian Act along with subsection 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867. Both of these were described as discriminatory because they ascribed special status to first nations.

The white paper also proposed removing legislative impediments to equality, establishing aboriginal communities as municipalities, eliminating reserve lands, and terminating aboriginal and treaty rights. It's now understood that the goal of the white paper on Indian policy was the assimilation of aboriginal peoples.

Although intense and unprecedented opposition from first nations led to the withdrawal of the white paper on Indian policy, it was never really abandoned. Instead, it was implemented piecemeal by way of a succession of federal programs and through legislation such as the current Bill C-7. Moreover, Kairos believes that in order to gauge the full impact of Bill C-7 on the rights and lives of first nations, it must be seen as part of a legislative package that includes Bill C-6, the Specific Claims Resolution Act, and Bill C-19, the First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act.

Kairos is dismayed that much of the proposed legislative package runs contrary to the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, to the 1983 Commons Special Committee on Indian Self-Government, better known as the Penner report, and to the 2000 Senate committee report, “Forging New Relationships”.

À (1040)

Mr. Carl Rausch (Chair, Aboriginal Rights Committee, Canadian Ecumenical Justice Initiatives (Kairos)): It's my turn to speak now, and I just wanted to highlight one thing before I spoke. As chair of the committee, I just wanted to mention to you that on our committee we have representatives from the Anglican, United, and Presbyterian churches--I'm a Lutheran volunteer person--and the different Catholic organizations. In Kairos we represent the mainstream churches in our work.

Part of our experience as Kairos has also been at the international level, because sometimes it's instructive to pay attention to the world around us. Internationally, Canada consistently champions self-determination and people's ability to make their own decisions and govern their own lives. As Canada, we have signed conventions and covenants. Canada is actively working on a project that is going on at the UN, the Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. On the surface, Canada appears to its neighbours on the rest of the planet in a certain manner, appearing to be actively working in support of this.

The particular section in the Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoplessays that indigenous peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right, they should freely determine their political status--governance--and freely pursue their economic, social, and cultural development. That's implicit, that there is choice, yet domestic Canadian policy in terms of first nations has been abundantly clear for the 30 years we have been involved with first nations, and it is in stark contrast to what is said on the international stage.

One particular example in Bill C-7 is that by defining leadership, by defining governance, and by defining what is within the scope of the act, Bill C-7 is essentially telling peoples who have the right to self-determination, this is what it means for you. This is a principle we do not accept.

Sister Dorothy Moore (Canadian Ecumenical Justice Initiatives (Kairos)): [Editor's Note: Witness speaks in her native language]

I just spoke in the Mi'kmaq language, one of the endangered aboriginal languages in Canada. What I said is that I wish to convey to you our gratitude for listening to us today, and I'm asking you to listen with not only your minds but also your hearts.

I am going to speak a little bit about consultation. The majority of first nations people and organizations either do not support this legislation or at a minimum retain serious concerns about its potential impact on their rights. It is unconscionable and unacceptable for the government to proceed with this bill in the face of continuing aboriginal opposition, especially since first nations organizations have repeatedly demonstrated their willingness to collaborate.

While Kairos applauds both the government's decision to refer the bill to committee before second reading and the committee's decision to travel across the country, we know that only a small percentage of aboriginal peoples took part in the information sessions and community meetings held prior to the bill's introduction. We fear there remains a profound ignorance about this bill--and I speak for myself here as well--in both aboriginal and non-aboriginal communities across Canada. In addition, we are concerned about reports from aboriginal peoples who took part in the consultation process that Bill C-7 does not reflect their input.

Does Bill C-7 address the protection of the most vulnerable of our people--the elders, the women, and the children? It is absolutely critical that the government make every possible effort to reach all peoples all across the nation, especially the grassroots people and the women, to make sure equality is addressed.

I would now like to quote to you what an aboriginal woman said relating to Bill C-7. She is a Mi'kmaq lawyer, and this is her concern:

With the inception of the Indian Act, the Federal government began a campaign of “divide and conquer” which has been very effective. It began as the age old blue print of oppression which is to divide the women from the men. Since then, it has perpetuated itself into large rifts between status and non-status Indians. With Bill C-31 these cracks in our foundation were broken wide open resulting in mistrust and resentment within our community. Whenever the oppressor divides the oppressed group and makes only limited “spoils” available--it is inevitable that the oppressed group will fight each other in order to get their share of the spoils. In doing so we let the oppressor off the hook, for his problems would be great if we united against him.

The failure of this new legislation to address the difficult problems that the Indian Act and Bill C-31 has cost our community shows a lack of conviction for true change. It is a good idea to address some of our financial or organizational issues--but if we don't address the very heart of our problems, we will never be self-sufficient. Moreover the attempt at making our governments more transparent strikes me as an attempt to appease the non-Aboriginal tax payers of Canada--not a measure designed to improve the lives of Aboriginal Peoples.

[Editor's Note: Witness speaks in her native language]

Thank you.

À (1045)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We will proceed directly to questions. The first round will be a two-minute round, but the official opposition always gets a minute more.

Mr. Vellacott is next for three minutes.

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

There was some comment, at least in Sister Dorothy's presentation, about women's rights, and in particular things like real property rights and so on. You're obviously thinking there's no redeeming virtue in this bill or it's just not salvageable at all.

If it's the intent of the government to move forward with it, is there any way we can insert some things concerning women and human rights that will mitigate and help in some fashion, particularly on women's rights and real property?

The human rights exemption is no longer the case with this bill, but it still appears to allow--for cultural and other kinds of reasons that might be twisted or torqued a bit--the exclusion of women from some things.

Is there any way we can salvage the bill, with respect to women's rights, human rights, and real property rights, by inserting certain clauses or expressions?

Sister Dorothy Moore: My thought on that is women have to be heard, first and foremost. Women have to have their say in how this bill is going to represent them as well; how it's going to protect them. They have not heard that; therefore, for women, this Bill C-7 is a threat.

Do any of my comrades wish to add to that?

Ms. Jane Orion Smith: Our position is that we don't see that the bill is amendable. We believe the bill needs to be withdrawn. One of the key reasons why the churches are quite clear about that is the lack of consultation around the bill, the lack of broad support by first nations people. That flows out of what we believe is a lack of integrity in how the bill has been put together.

It should have been rooted in a consultative dialogue process with first nations people. Instead, it was drafted and then chopped rather than beginning out of mutual dialogue. For those sorts of things to be defined, I think we need to go back to square one and begin a new dialogue.

Mr. Carl Rausch: As a final point, we are aware that on the surface it looks like a national women's organization was involved. We also know when this organization started compared to other national women's organizations. We wonder why it happened to start when it did with the funding, mechanism, and procedure it had. We very seriously question any meaningful input from first nations women.

À (1050)

The Chair: Thank you.

Monsieur Loubier, deux minutes.

[Translation]

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

Welcome to this committee. Last week, the committee heard Dr. Cornell from the University of Arizona and he was saying very much the same things as you. He did not talk specifically about self-government and of the inherent treaty rights of aboriginals, but he said that in the United States, the experiences which had worked over the past 100 years were the ones in which, from the outset, the self-government of aboriginal peoples had been respected as well as their own methods of governance, their traditions and culture. The successful ones had taken these factors into account from the outset and made adjustments to meet their needs and to improve governance and service to the population. On the other hand, the minister states that the bill will do all those things, but that it will take time and that the aboriginals must be prepared because, apparently, they are not used to holding power, to exercising democracy, management, and the management of public funds.

Thus—and here you should confirm my own deep convictions about this matter as well as those of Dr. Cornell, whom I have great respect for—how can you say that you are negotiating as one nation with another, that you are respecting self-government and taking inherent rights into consideration, while at the same time, the aboriginal nations of Canada are being treated like children in Bill C-7? How can you explain that? Also, how can you explain that some aboriginal representatives praise this bill, whereas most Canadian aboriginals disagree with this project?

[English]

The Chair: You have 15 seconds. I apologize, but that's what you have.

Ms. Jane Orion Smith: I think you picked up on one thing. Canada has yet to come to terms with being in nation-to-nation negotiations with aboriginal people. When you think about Bill C-7....

Let's say you were making a treaty or an agreement with France, Germany, or some other country. Canada wouldn't come to the table with something already completely drafted and say, “Well, you know, what do you think of this?” You would sit down together, negotiate on the terms and shared concerns, and define the way forward. I think that's what we were expecting.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Hubbard.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, please.

The Chair: Yes, on a point of order. We'll run out of time because of this point of order.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Yes, but let me point out that there are neither any Conservative MPs nor any NDP members present. Could you kindly be more indulgent and allow the witnesses to answer the questions? It could be interesting, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: You were the one who spoke for too long. You took too much time to put your question.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: We call this flexibility and smart management, Mr. Chairman. If you can't show some flexibility...

The Chair: Maybe I am not as smart as you are, but I have work to do. There will be a second round and you will be able to put two questions. If you take up all the time... You know that these two minutes are meant for both the question and the answer. We should show some respect for our guests and give them a chance to reply.

Mr. Hubbard.

[English]

Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): Thanks, Mr. Chair. I'll try to be careful with my two minutes.

Your churches have worked with first nations or people for hundreds of years, and I was a little bit taken aback this morning by some of the political dynamics that you're trying to introduce here.

You know, the word “self-determination” goes back historically, in terms of its significance...with Woodrow Wilson's 17 points, and the political distribution of Europe after the First World War.

You talk about “nation to nation”, and the bill talks about this being interim legislation. The minister, the department, has been working with various first nations--in fact, nearly 100 of them--developing systems of self-government. That's an ongoing process that you are probably quite aware of. But to simply say to us today, let's go back to the old bill of 1876, which hasn't been very satisfactory, and leave it for another....

Parliament has tried twice in the last 10 years to come up with a system to make changes and to bring the Indian Act into the 21st century. In 1996-97, of course, there was an optional replacement of the Indian Act, and more recently, there's the proposed legislation that we are looking at today.

I wonder if we could hear specifically why you see problems with Bill C-7. On the argument that everyone has to participate, in the House today they are talking about Bill C-13, on reproductive technologies. I don't think every person in Canada is versed on what that bill is bringing about. There are a lot of amendments, a lot of motions coming forward. So to try to say to us that everyone, in terms of the million people who are going to be affected....

There are leaders. There are people like you, who have worked--

À (1055)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Hubbard.

Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: My next question would be around the issue of self-determination. It's a good word, a good term, maybe variously understood.

Would you agree, as witnesses here today, that there is an evolution, a development, if you will, in terms of governance with aboriginal people? There surely has been with non-aboriginal people. We used to be under kings. We've moved to a democracy, and we still need to fine-tune that and improve that over time. Is it possible or is it fair to say that within aboriginal communities, we don't just always hearken back to some nostalgic, romantic past? There were some good things then, but it was not always so rosy. I've had aboriginal people tell me that. But can there be evolution to some more democratic ways of doing it? Are you okay with that, development and evolution over time in terms of aboriginal governance?

Mr. Carl Rausch: The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples has a section that I've been waving around, because if you're serious about looking at restructuring the relationship--just to pick up on the discussion on self-determination--there are sections in here that talk, from a very broad perspective, from all the histories, about leadership, governance, and developing things by consensus. It's not nostalgia. It's not something that's out of touch with reality.

First nations people are very practical people. They're traders. They know what to do. They need to do it, as we need to do it, with others, not have it done to them.

We have been very supportive of the great work that went into and came out of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. I'd suggest you look at volume II. I could give you pages that talk about governance and about democracy.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Dromisky.

Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.): Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.

As the members of the committee know, I'm new on this committee. This is my first session, and much has gone on. I haven't had the chance to read any of that material yet because I'm on other committees.

I heard Sister Dorothy Moore mention that there wasn't enough dialogue taking place on a local level between government and the native communities.

It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that I read somewhere that Minister Nault has scheduled over 400 meetings with first nations peoples pertaining to this bill over a period of time. Isn't that adequate? How many meetings would you expect them to have? Is there a certain percentage of people that have to be met with?

I really don't know what that means because I don't think any country in the world, anywhere, would have a ministry meeting on a specific bill and have over 400 meetings pertaining to that bill. I think that's excessive.

Sister Dorothy Moore: It may sound excessive, but when you look at Nova Scotia, for example, where there is a fair number of aboriginal people, there is only one hearing in Nova Scotia relating to this bill. Do I consider that sufficient? No. There should be at least three hearings, or two--one in the Cape Breton area, where there is a big blizzard today, and one in mainland Nova Scotia--so that more of our people can come to a hearing.

That's just one example. Canada is large, and I didn't hear about 400 meetings, I heard 100. And if it's 100 meetings, it definitely is not sufficient. That's my thinking on it.

As well, many people do not even know a hearing is taking place.

Á (1100)

The Chair: Thank you.

Monsieur Loubier.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: As a point of information for Mr. Dromisky, let me say that these 400 meetings are meant for taking information, and not for exchanging ideas or points of view with the communities.

On another train of thought, there are standing joint committees comprised of elected members of the House of Commons and of senators. I believe that the best way to proceed to deal with the governance issue while respecting self-government and inherent rights consists in bringing aboriginal representatives to work with us here, to strike joint committee with aboriginals, even they are not elected. Senators are not elected, but this does not stand in the way of striking joint committees.

Do you think that in the future we could work together with aboriginal representatives to build true projects, which will be of benefit to them while respecting their right to self-government?

[English]

Mr. Carl Rausch: One of the interesting things is what this particular minister and this particular government did with the Bill C-6 process, where there was joint work done. It wasn't in hearings like this, but there was work done, and for years. There was a recommendation by all the parties, and it was not pursued.

The process that you describe is a very hopeful process. The process is very hopeful, and again, it's one of the things that RCAP speaks to. Let's hope it's done in good faith.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Last week, an aboriginal intervenor said that we should avoid constitutionalizing the governance projects. What do you think of this?

[English]

Mr. Carl Rausch: There are historical relationships that the courts have also addressed, such as aboriginal title with the Delgamuukw decision. There is the historical proclamation of 1763. There are things that go a long way back that say what the reality is, that first nations people are the original peoples of this place.

You're correct by not saying that everything needs to be handled under the Constitution. However, everybody also has the protections of what's in the Constitution, so it's a balance.

I'm certainly not suggesting the Constitution does not matter and it's just what's under aboriginal title. That's not the point. The point is that we take into account much of what was in the past.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I invite you to make closing remarks, and we'll allow five minutes for that. I apologize to you for having started late, but we'll extend five minutes plus.

Mr. Ed Bianchi: Before Jane does the closing for us, I just wanted--as well as Mr. Loubier--to respond to Mr. Dromisky's questions about the consultation.

I think the reason there is so much frustration with this legislation among aboriginal peoples and within our organization is that there has been so much consultation done in the past on these very issues. In tabling this bill, it seems the government has either misplaced all that work or has chosen not to take it seriously. I think rather than take it from the point of view of “400 information sessions, isn't that enough?”, the question should be, “Why we aren't building on the genuine consultation, the genuine work that has already been done on this issue?”

Ms. Jane Orion Smith: I believe the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples presented a watershed opportunity to Canada to open up a new chapter of nation-to-nation relations, of meaningful dialogue and negotiation between Canada and first nations. I believe it's not too late and indeed it's imperative that we return to the RCAP recommendations and begin by withdrawing Bill C-7.

If you haven't read the RCAP report, particularly if you're sitting on this committee, I'd really encourage you to do so, because it's a hopeful and exciting blueprint that comes out of extensive consultation and shared ownership among the aboriginal and non-aboriginal commissioners and so many groups that have been working on aboriginal issues over a long period of time.

Our recommendations to the standing committee here are very much the same as the ones we made to the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination this past summer. We submitted a brief to them on Canada's record.

The first was to abandon Bill C-7 and work with aboriginal peoples nation-to-nation to address issues of governance as well as other priorities identified by aboriginal peoples, including land rights and treaty implementation, poverty, education, and employment.

These are critical issues that require attention. I fully agree that the Indian Act is not an acceptable document, but this is simply not the way for us to move forward.

Secondly, base future first nations governance discussions on recommendation 2.3.2 of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, which states: “All governments in Canada recognize that Aboriginal peoples are nations vested with the right of self-determination.”

Kairos' 11 member churches continue to work with aboriginal peoples to reconcile with respect and integrity our common past, present, and future. Although the full spectrum of beliefs, attitudes, and values toward first nations peoples is represented among the several million members of our partner churches, we feel compelled to express our belief that this legislation is deeply flawed for the reasons cited above in our submission, and that it threatens to undermine much of the work that has been done to right the relationship between aboriginal and non-aboriginal peoples in Canada.

I can't impress upon you enough what a critical moment I feel we're at and the kind of division I've felt in communities I've visited across Canada around the package of bills coming forward. I really fear for the future relationship between aboriginal and non-aboriginal Canada and the future we're creating for all of the children in future generations.

I thank you so much for the time we've had here. We wish you well in your work and our prayers will be with you.

Thank you.

Á (1105)

The Chair: God knows we will need them.

We want to thank you very much. If the process appears to be tight, it is. That's the time we have for individual groups. But I can tell you this committee spent three months last spring consulting with aboriginals, all the leaders. We asked them to educate us. We're spending nine weeks on this bill now.

As far as the consultation by the department is concerned, I know it was $10 million. It was the most intensive consultation done by a department. The participation wasn't very good; we all know that. But then, my parish priest preaches every Sunday for us to go to mass, but he's preaching to the people who are there. For those who choose not to show up for the consultation--or for mass--well, it's pretty hard afterward to say, “You didn't consult with us.” But that's only an opinion.

I want to thank you very much for participating.

We will suspend for three minutes while we set up the TV sets for videoconferencing.

Á (1130)

Á (1108)

Á (1134)

The Chair: It's 37 degrees below zero, I understand, so it's cold, but with all the hot air in this building we'll keep warm.

We'll resume public hearings on Bill C-7, an act respecting leadership selection, administration, and accountability of Indian bands, and to make related amendments to other acts.

We are joined from Whitehorse by Chief Hammond Dick, Kaska Tribal Council.

We invite you to make your presentation.

Á (1135)

Chief Hammond Dick (Kaska Tribal Council): First of all, I'd like to say good morning to you, Mr. Chair, and to the committee members.

My name is Hammond Dick. I'm the Tribal Chief of the Kaska Tribal Council, part of the Kaska Nation, and I'm appearing on behalf of the Kaska Nation. I want to thank you for this opportunity to appear before you to highlight the concerns of the Kaska Nation regarding Bill C-7.

I was prepared to give you a brief background of the Kaska Nation as to our traditional territory and reserve lands as well as our history of treaty negotiations with the Canadian, provincial, and territorial governments. However, that background would have added an additional five to ten minutes to my submission, so in the interests of time I have submitted this background information to Ms. Kingston, clerk of the standing committee. I will now move directly to the Kaska Nation's submission on Bill C-7.

Mr. Chair and committee members, I would like to state the Kaska Nation's position regarding Bill C-7 very clearly for the record. The Kaska Nation strongly opposes Bill C-7 for the simple reason that the master's tools will not dismantle the master's house. I do not say that lightly, as mere rhetoric. We cannot hope to achieve a respectful nation-to-nation relationship consistent with the affirmation and recognition of our constitutionally protected rights through amendments to a paternalistic statute.

The Indian Act has sought to destroy the aboriginal right to self-determination. The Indian Act does not recognize the inherent right to self-government. The Indian Act seeks to govern first nations, it does not provide for first nation self-government. We cannot build a new relationship between aboriginal and non-aboriginal governments on a tainted foundation. This bill will unilaterally impose financial and administrative burdens upon first nations without our consent and in breach of the fiduciary duty owed to us by the Crown.

Mr. Chair and committee members, I implore you to stop and think about this bill, which is going to be legislated very soon. If you do not take the time to reflect on this matter, it will be a part of the legislative history that accepts segregated aboriginal people across this land.

No doubt you have already heard this argument voiced by many aboriginal groups. No doubt you have heard legal scholars who specialize in aboriginal law make the same argument. No doubt you will hear aboriginal representative after representative across this land. This bill will infringe on our aboriginal rights. This bill will infringe on the aboriginal rights of the Kaska Nation and its Kaska people. This bill will infringe on the aboriginal rights protected by the Constitution of Canada. If Bill C-7 is enacted without amendment by this committee, its legality will be challenged in the courts.

Despite this position, the Kaska Nation is pragmatic. We recognize that at this stage in the legislative process we are effectively in a position of damage control. We recognize the need for constructive criticism. With that, I will turn to our suggested amendments and additions to the proposed legislation.

Mr. Chair, I know this committee will hear a tremendous roar of opposition to this bill in the coming months. If I can, I would like to explain what the Kaska Nation sees as the underlying problem we've found in this proposed legislation in section after section.

Á (1140)

The drafters of this bill started from the basic premise that the First Nations Governance Act would not expressly recognize or affirm the existence of self-government rights. It would make reference to the inherent rights policy. It would exempt those first nations fortunate enough to have self-government agreements, but it would not expand federal recognition of the aboriginal right to self-government.

The Kaska Nation submits that this is a fatal flaw. One must be mindful of developments in case law and the Constitution when drafting any amendments to federal statutes. Otherwise, you risk creating a law that is unconstitutional, a law that ignores judicial wisdom. It is almost as though the drafters of this bill believed they could be wilfully blind to aboriginal law and section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. I say again, it is a fatal flaw.

Accordingly, the Kaska Nation's suggested amendments and additions are mindful of the aboriginal rights that are at stake here. First, it is the Kaska Nation's submission that the most important amendment to this bill is that it must be made optional. If Canada recognizes any rights of aboriginal self-determination, we must at least have the choice whether to opt in to these changes to the Indian Act. I strongly suggest that this committee adopt language from the predecessor to this bill, the Indian Act Optional Modification Act, Bill C-79, which was tabled in 1996.

Second, it is absolutely necessary that stronger non-derogation language be added to the preamble and that a stand-alone non-derogation section be added to the bill as clause 2. This committee will save itself hundreds of hours of submissions if it recommends strong non-derogation language. Even the Indian Act Optional Modification Act had such a clause. Strong non-derogation language has become standard in all provincial and federal statutes that relate to aboriginal people across this land. I sincerely hope that the exclusion of stronger non-derogation language has not been used as a bargaining chip by the honourable minister.

Third, the Kaska Nation suggests the addition of three clauses to the preamble: one, a clause that specifically states that nothing in the charter abrogates or derogates from aboriginal treaties or other rights of aboriginal peoples, in particular any rights or freedoms relating to the exercise of the protection of their languages, cultures, and traditions; second, a clause affirming self-government as an existing right protected under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982; and third, a clause recognizing a continuing fiduciary relationship between the Crown and aboriginal peoples. These clauses would reflect aboriginal case law and would be in the spirit of constitutional amendments that were proposed under the Charlottetown Accord.

Fourth, we strongly suggest that subclause 5(2), which imposes a minimum requirement on particular custom-elected councils, and subclause 5(3), which imposes a time-limitation period on first nations to meet those minimum requirements, be redrafted. The courts have held that the right of aboriginal peoples to choose how all their political representatives are selected is an integral part of their right to self-government. We strongly suggest that the language of these clauses be redrafted to ensure that existing aboriginal rights are not infringed upon.

Fifth, Mr. Chair, as you are no doubt aware, clauses 5 through 7 provide bands with the opportunity to develop and adopt their own codes on leadership selection, on administration, and on financial management.

Á (1145)

As you also know, the bill provides a two-year window of first nations to put these goals in place. Otherwise, the governor in council has the power to create default codes by regulation under subclause 32(1).

Even with the most robust training moneys that will no doubt be provided by the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, a two-year period is not realistic for the range of capacity building that will be necessary across this country. We suggest that the two-year period be extended to four years and all affected clauses be amended to reflect this amendment.

Sixth, the Kaska Nation adopts and supports proposed texts submitted by Professor Larry Chartrand of the University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law, with respect to a non-derogation clause applicable to clauses 16 through 18. The proposed text reads as follows:

Notwithstanding anything in this Act, the law-making powers listed in sections 16,17 and 18 do not abrogate or derogate from the inherent right to self-government and where the express power overlaps with customary law making authority, they are declaratory in nature of such customary authority.

Mr. Chair, the Indian Act and this bill assumes that the aboriginal people do not have self-government law-making powers. They assume that first nations law-making powers must be delegated. This proposed text addresses this concern and we strongly suggest its addition to this.

Lastly, we suggest that clause 41, which enables the advocation of the Canadian Human Rights Act for aboriginal governmental organizations, must be redrafted to ensure that the cultural integrity of first nations is maintained and our distinctive culture and way of life is not unduly threatened by the assertion of the rights of the individuals.

It is very important to ensure that human rights legislation does not abrogate or derogate aboriginal treaty or other rights of the Kaska people--in particular, our rights relating to the exercise of the protection of our language, culture, and tradition.

Mr. Chair and committee members, in conclusion, I would like to repeat something I said earlier. As responsible legislators, I remind you to take time to stop and think about the legislation before you, this bill, to ensure that it does not infringe on our rights, the aboriginal right. If you do not take the time, it will form a part of the legislative history that has segregated our aboriginal peoples across this country.

I ask you to take to heart, and mind, the many passionate arguments that first nation after first nation, representative after representative, will make in front of you in the next few months.

Mr. Chair and committee members, I thank you for this opportunity to make this submission. I will be providing my speaking notes to the clerk. I wish you well in your deliberation of these important matters across this country.

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

Colleagues, this presentation by the Kaska Tribal Council is for one hour, because Chief Dick represents five communities. That's the reason we have a longer time, and I'm sure we'll be able to enjoy a lot of good questions when I allow the members sufficient time.

Mr. Vellacott, seven minutes.

Á (1150)

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: JMAC, the joint ministerial advisory group, worked supposedly in terms of getting some good stuff together. Some of those recommendations are found in this bill. Do you think there was a working together, some level of agreement, some input that was received, such that we see it in the legislation before us now? Are there some good things that you like in the bill, or is it all bad news?

Chief Hammond Dick: We look at it as all bad news, and we want the drafters to redraft it with a more consultative process across the country with first nations. I think when the bill was first put in place, there was very little consultation, and it's all ideas that came from the minister.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Do you agree with the joint ministerial advisory committee recommendation with respect to matrimonial property, that it should be a key area for reform among first nations across the country? Would it be feasible to address that in Bill C-7? Currently, it's not.

Chief Hammond Dick: Yes, we believe that is one area for a lot of first nations across the country, particularly for the Kaska Nation. Our way of traditional government is still maintained. Matrimonial linkages are important to our people. It still operates and functions accordingly in the communities represented by the Kaska Tribal Council.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Okay.

In the JMAC report again, they talked in terms of an institution being provided so there's capacity building, some resource building, if you will, to provide the governance services to first nations communities. There isn't any mention of that in this particular bill, Bill C-7. Does that concern you? It will be basically the large development costs.

You did actually make a point of saying you thought there would be some moneys and resources for that. Do you have either some verbal indication or some correspondence to indicate that?

There's nothing mentioned about that in this bill. It would be a concern to a lot of the small first nations communities across the country that they don't have--especially in the two-year period of time, and maybe even not in four years--the capacity to build and develop their own codes, and so on. Do you think there should be some kind of institution in place to help in this process, and should it be part of the legislation?

Chief Hammond Dick: That's correct. It's one of the reasons we made that submission as part of our suggestions to the standing committee, to review that language and also allow a longer term for smaller communities and the remote communities to address that issue....

It looks like the camera has fallen off the stand over here. I'm going to have to go over and repair it. Give me some time here.

Is it okay now?

The Chair: We can hear you, but we can't see you.

Chief Hammond Dick: Okay, I can see you. I'll get a technician here.

Á (1155)

The Chair: Is there a technician there to help you with that?

Chief Hammond Dick: Yes. They're working on it right now.

The Chair: I think these videoconferences are set up by a committee.

Okay. We can see you.

We'll be giving you all the time that you were allocated.

Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Thank you, Chief Dick.

It's Maurice Vellacott here, Canadian Alliance MP, questioning you now.

The bill contains minimum standards for the governance codes. Do you feel that inhibits flexibility, inhibits the enabling of different bands to develop codes that meet their own needs? Are there specific standards that you wish to comment on in terms of the codes that are laid out in the bill?

As well, there is the fact that if a band, a community, does not meet those particular codes, then it goes to a default regime, default codes. We don't know what those codes are. Have you had any input in terms of a draft of default codes? It's something of a blank cheque that way.

So, first, in terms of the minimal standards within, do you have a comment on that? Are there any specific standards there that you say are good, or maybe not good, they're too rigid, not flexible enough? And do you have any remarks in respect to an absence of a default code?

Chief Hammond Dick: We spoke to that, and we feel that there isn't enough latitude with regard to allowing a band to select their own leaders. The time that is given to allow a first nation to develop those codes, we say that it's not long enough.

We feel that we, particularly first nations communities such as ours, which are small communities and most of the time they're resource-strapped in terms of financial and human resources, and given the remoteness factor of where they're situated, particularly in the Yukon, need adequate time and resources in order to develop codes to select their leaders, and also to provide administrative codes for their communities. We feel that the two-year period is not long enough.

The default code we spoke of, we feel that it's not really democratic. We feel that by including a default code after two years is not fair, and therefore we need to extend that time to a four-year period to put in a code that will be appropriate for the community and for the band in particular.

Â (1200)

The Chair: Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Loubier, you have six minutes.

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

Chief Dick, you mentioned just now that the government had not consulted the aboriginal nations about its bill and that everything in this bill comes from the minister. On the other hand, the minister constantly repeats that there were many consultations, that he personally took part in 400 meetings with representatives of aboriginal peoples and that he did the same with Bill C-6 with regard to specific claims. On the other hand, the aboriginal representatives say that they were not consulted. We will have to draw a line between truth and falsehood. What are we to make of the minister's attitude and of what you just said about the lack of consultation?

[English]

Chief Hammond Dick: Thank you.

We are aware that the minister has made a lot of effort to consult communities and leaders across the country. Our communities have been part of that consultation process, but it was not as in depth a consultative process as we would like.

As you know, the Kaska Nation people are situated in a multi-jurisdictional area. Our communities straddle the Yukon and northern B.C. border. Our traditional territory straddles the Northwest Territories as well. We feel the information that we have provided to the clerk as background information for the committee members states that we, too, are trying to negotiate a treaty, a land claim with Canada, and the provinces, and the territories. We feel that we will need more time to take part in this initiative.

In our submission we feel that, particularly for the Yukon, there are three categories of processes that reflect on this bill. We mentioned that there are first nations that have concluded their final agreements and as such they're self-governing agreements, and there are those that are negotiating and wrapping up their final agreements, and they will soon be ratifying their agreements.

The Kaska Nation, on the other hand, we're still trying to re-engage the government in concluding our final agreements. Therefore, we're out in no-man's land. As much as we would like to put our self-government structures in place, we find that the government policies are such that we find it difficult to put our own governing powers in place as we speak.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Chief Dick, you said just now that the Kaska nation is currently negotiating a treaty on self-government and land claims with the federal government. What would happen if the government went ahead with Bill C-7, with an extremely tight timeline, for instance, the two years provided for implementing the provisions for the codes of governance? What would happen to these negotiations if you were compelled to follow the provisions of Bill C-7?

Â (1205)

[English]

Chief Hammond Dick: Right now, the Kaska Nation, for the Yukon particularly, is not in negotiations with Canada at this point. According to the proposed legislation, this bill will not apply to those first nations that are self-governing. We don't know any timeframe or when we would conclude an agreement with Canada, and the provinces, and the territories in order to be a recognized self-governing first nation. Therefore, that is not known to us at this time. As such, there is an assumption by the drafters that the Yukon would be exempt from this bill, and we're not sure how that will affect the Kaska communities.

The Chair: Merci, Monsieur Loubier.

Ms. Karetak-Lindell, six minutes.

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Thank you.

I think a lot of my questions were answered in the previous one, but how many people are you talking about with your group of five communities? What is the population there?

Chief Hammond Dick: The Kaska Nation has approximately between 3,000 and 3,200 individuals.

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: Over how many communities in the southern part of the Yukon?

Chief Hammond Dick: There are five recognized communities and there are some satellite communities that are attempting to seek recognition from Canada as a community and as a band.

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: I'm very interested in how a group works within a piece of legislation when they have different jurisdictions. I know you covered that a bit with the previous questioner, but what do you see in Bill C-7 that would likely make your life difficult and how would you hope to see it amended in dealing with the fact that, as you say, parts of it are in British Columbia, parts of it are in the Northwest Territories, and then the Yukon?

We heard some interesting information from Akwesasne that deals with even a different country, so I'm wondering if you see something in Bill C-7 that would make it easier to deal with those border boundaries. What would you like to see in Bill C-7 that would make it easier for the jurisdictional... I'm not sure what you would call it, running into more than one province or territory?

Chief Hammond Dick: That's right, this has always been a problem for our communities. We, as Kaska people, speak one language. Our communities are linked together in many ways. We find that it's difficult to work administration-wise within the jurisdictional administration between the Yukon, northern B.C., and the Northwest Territories. In our attempt to negotiate a final agreement for the Kaska communities, we provided information at a number of negotiating tables that we are involved in to reach a final agreement with Canada, and the provinces, and the territories. What we seek is one final agreement out of the seven tables that we've set up. We find that it's time-consuming, it costs a lot of money, and there's a lot of coordinating.

A good example of the sort of governance that we seek is similar to the Navaho in the southwest United States. Their area is covered through four states, but still they are provided with the authority to govern their own people, much the way they have done for thousands and thousands of years. We would like to see a similar agreement, a similar process, for our people within our traditional territory. And I mention, again, that our traditional territory covers about 93,000 square miles and it straddles southeast Yukon, western parts of the Northwest Territories, and northeastern B.C.

Â (1210)

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: Thank you.

I have a question on the optionality. You stated in your presentation that you would like it to be optional, but wouldn't that eventually cause a lot of difficulty in terms of different administration for different bands, depending on whether they have opted in or not? I'm just wondering if you've thought that through.

Chief Hammond Dick: Yes, we have thought it through. We feel that this bill, if it does go through, would be detrimental to the way we would like to govern ourselves, and that the timeframe given in the draft legislation, as I've said earlier, will need to be expanded upon in order for us to really be a part of the process that has been set out.

We argue that we want to be considered as part of this process if it goes through, but numerous amendments will have to be made and we have made a number of proposed amendments to reflect the things we would like to have provided in the draft legislation.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Vellacott, four minutes.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Thank you again, Chief Dick. Something you keep coming back to is that if you had four years as opposed to two to work with Bill C-7, adjusted here or there in terms of possible amendments as we go through the months ahead.... Do you think you could work within that? Could you come up on your own with the codes in the different areas in keeping with your own culture and traditions? Would four years make all the difference in terms of this being acceptable, the possibility of getting it right, all the codes and so on?

Chief Hammond Dick: I'm sure it would. We have been working closely with the Kaska communities to begin a lot of that work in our negotiations with Canada and the provinces over the last 30 years. I think we have gone a long way toward putting in place a governing system that would reflect the way our people would like to be governed. We feel that with enough financial and human resources provided by Indian and Northern Affairs, we would achieve this in that given time.

We just feel that the two years that have been suggested now are not long enough.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: If I understand you correctly, then, you're saying that given the time and the resources, you think you could work within the parameters of Bill C-7 and still have your own autonomy and self-government within this process. I think that's what I'm hearing you say, if you could quickly respond.

I have another question. There is a 25% threshold--in other words, 25% of eligible voters participating for the adoption of election codes. Is 25% among your people too high a threshold, or too low, or is it just about right? I mean, 25% means that 75% would not be a part of it. Is this a good threshold for setting the leadership selection codes?

Â (1215)

Chief Hammond Dick: We feel that a larger threshold would probably be more sufficient. That said, when a selection process is given to select the leaders, we feel that it provides for certainty from the membership as to who is selected, and we feel that's important.

That threshold that you speak of is something we've talked about over the last number of years, trying to put something in place for selecting our leadership.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: If I understand you, you're saying 25% is too low. You think you could have more people out and a higher threshold of 35% or--

Chief Hammond Dick: That's correct.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Hubbard, four minutes.

You're fine?

Okay, Monsieur Loubier, quatre minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Let me make a comment for Chief Dick. I think that your idea of making the application of this act optional for aboriginal nations is excellent. Let me come back to the terms used by Ms. Karetak-Lindell a moment ago. The Minister of Aboriginal and Northern Affairs claims that aboriginal communities agree with this bill, that this is the right way to go and that the aboriginals whom he consulted consider this to be a good bill. But if we made the application of this bill optional, the cat might get out of the bag, so to say. Everyone would see that there is almost no support for his bill, and his bill would simply fail.

To make the application of this bill optional is, in my opinion, an idea we should continue promoting, because then we would see how much real support it has among aboriginal communities. We could, without a doubt, demonstrate during the next two years that the minister is on the wrong track and that the best way to solve the problem would be to consult you, because you are the main stakeholders. We should consult with you as one equal nation with another, and not by treating you like children as is proposed in bills C-7 and C-6.

Thank you, Chief Dick, for your contribution. If you have any comments about what I just said, they are welcome. Please feel entirely free to express them.

[English]

Chief Hammond Dick: Thank you once again. I'm glad you've looked at those clauses. We have looked at those clauses as well, and we feel that as democratic people across this country we should choose what should apply to our people. Our communities, our people have been part of this process for a long time, and we say, “If it's not broke, don't fix it.”

[Translation]

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

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Laliberte is next for four minutes.

Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, Lib.): Good morning, Chief. Ethlante.

You mentioned there are approximately 3,200 members in the Kaska Nation. Are all of them within the region, or are they all over Canada or all over the world? What do you think is the total number of the nation?

Chief Hammond Dick: The total number, as I said earlier, is a little over 3,000, and they're stretched probably all over the country. I would say probably 80% of them are still in the communities in northern B.C., Yukon, and parts of Northwest Territories.

Â (1220)

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Part of the Corbiere decision was to allow off-reserve or off-community members to vote. Is that an active election process right now, for people to vote from all over Canada, to be part of your election process?

Chief Hammond Dick: Not yet, no, although we are aware of that requirement. Because of the cost to the small communities, we're having a hard time trying to meet that requirement.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: So on this First Nations Governance Act, you seem to portray a belief that certain amendments could certainly strengthen this bill or rectify the concerns you have. There is a concern I want to raise with you, and let's see how you react to it.

You're very adamant, Chief, that you identify your nation as the Kaska Nation. Now that we have a First Nations Governance Act, should the definition of first nations be a list of all the nations of Canada, including the Kaska and all the surrounding nations in your area? Would it be good advice right now, or a good exercise for this committee to entertain, to define first nations as the Kaska, the Dogrib, the Dene, the Cree, the Mi'kmaq, the Mohawk--all those nations? Would it be appropriate at this time in our Canadian history to start defining who these nations actually are?

Chief Hammond Dick: Yes, I believe it's important. As I said earlier, building a relationship with the Crown and the provinces is important. We see that as part of our growing relationship.

We as Kaska people have organized ourselves, and we approach any of the processes that the government provides right now on a nation basis. The communities that are part of the Kaska Nation are Kaska First Nation, within the meaning of the Kaska Nation. So in our negotiations with Canada, the provinces, and the territories, we have been dealing on a nation basis since 1987.

On where we want to go from here, we want to be recognized as a nation within a nation. As such, we would work closely with the governments and the industry toward dispensing, and toward governing our people.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Thank you very much, Chief.

The Chair: I see no other hands up for questions.

Chief, thank you very much for your information. It's been very helpful. We'll ask you now to make your closing remarks. You have up to five minutes for that, sir.

Chief Hammond Dick: Okay.

Thanks to you, Mr. Chair, and to committee members, once again, for giving me this opportunity to address this important issue. With the numerous processes we have in trying to find a place for our people and make things better for our people, we feel that we need to work a lot more closely with the governments in order to achieve that.

I know you, as legislators, are doing your best. As I've said earlier, we are in a damage control process. We still have several months to make corrections to the legislation that is being proposed. We feel that we can make it work as long as our recommendations in this submission are provided for.

We feel strongly that, failing that, we will be further marginalized by the governments. Up until now, we've been trying to let the governments and industry know how marginalized we are. The legislation that is being proposed now will further damage that relationship.

We feel that we need to work together a lot more closely. We need to be aware of the things that are going to be important to our people. As you know as legislators, for our people, our communities, there's a lot to be worked out at that level. We have high unemployment. We have social problems in our communities. Our people are living in a third world country.

That said, Canada is looked upon as a first-rate country to live in, but if you visit one of our communities within the Kaska territory, you'll find a deplorable rate of social concerns at the community level. That is what we want to improve, the lives of our people, the communities, and to allow our leaders to be selected according to the way that we would want to see.

There's a lot I could say in regard to what can be done. The legislation that is being drafted here will take away some of that if it proceeds down that road. We feel that there have to be some drastic measures, drastic amendments, to make this legislation something that we can work with.

If the legislation does not account for our recommendations, then I'm not sure where we, as Kaska people, as a Kaska nation, could turn to. Our ancestors have always believed in the Crown. We know a working relationship is important to the development of our people, of our communities. As such, we would like the committee to take our recommendations seriously and to let us know, once the process is over, what sort of changes have been made to accommodate our recommendations.

Once again, thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members, for this opportunity.

Â (1225)

The Chair: Thank you very much, Chief. You have been very helpful.

Colleagues, we'll resume at 3:15, or immediately after the vote.