AANR Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Monday, February 24, 2003

¿

0900

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

Mr. George Calliou (Acting Chief Executive Director, Athabasca Tribal Council)

¿

0905

¿

0910

¿

0915

The Chair

Mr. George Calliou

¿

0920

¿

0925

The Chair

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

Mr. George Calliou

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. George Calliou

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. George Calliou

¿

0930

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. George Calliou

The Chair

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

¿

0935

Mr. George Calliou

The Chair

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

¿

0940

Mr. George Calliou

The Chair

Mr. George Calliou

The Chair

Mr. George Calliou

¿

0945

The Chair

Mr. Ken Janke (As Individual)

The Chair

Mr. Ken Janke

¿

0950

The Chair

Mr. Ken Janke

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources

---

NUMBER 035

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Monday, February 24, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿  (0900)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.)): We will now 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.

    From the Athabasca Tribal Council, we welcome the acting chief executive director, George Calliou.

    For those in attendance, after this presentation, we will open the floor to two-minute presentations by anyone who has not presented or will not be presenting to the committee. Those wishing to speak may register.

    Welcome, George. Please start your presentation. We have 45 minutes, and I hope you will allow some time for questions.

    Mr. George Calliou (Acting Chief Executive Director, Athabasca Tribal Council):

    Good morning. Before I start, I would like to begin my presentation with what people would refer to as a smudging or cleansing. I do this because the topic of the discussion is addressing more than a policy discussion or a legislative discussion. It addresses the essence of our people. It addresses the spiritual elements of our relationship with people who now call themselves Canadians. So I would like to begin my presentation by asking for guidance from our ancestors and from our Creator. I don't do this for show. I do this with sincerity, and I do this because Chief Jim Boucher is unable to be here this morning. Greater responsibility has been thrust upon me and I need all the support and guidance I can get. Please bear with me.

    Thank you very much.

    My name is George Calliou, and I'm the acting chief executive officer for the Athabasca Tribal Council. The timing of the preparation and the timing of the hearing process was somewhat pressing for us. As a result, the presentation was to be made by Chief Jim Boucher and me. I was talking to Jim Boucher last night and early this morning, and he unfortunately can't attend today.

    As I indicated, the topic of governance and the topic of the issues related to governance with respect to the original peoples of this country are not only based on mutually beneficial relationships as a result of treaties, but as a result of our relationship with all Creation. Having said that, I would like to welcome everyone in the room, and particularly the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, to the traditional territories of the Cree and Dene people, as represented by the Athabasca Tribal Council.

¿  (0905)  

    You've heard across the land different statements, different comments with respect to this legislation. You've heard comments, I'm sure, that this legislation is not favoured by many people. This legislation talks about governance, but from an administrative perspective and not from a true governance perspective, not from a treaty perspective.

    I would like to bring the committee back to the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, which stated in its findings that there were four general eras of relationship, so to speak. The first was one of two nations living independently, two societies living independently of one another, each living out its own needs and its own realities.

    Then came the era of mutual dependence. For the most part, that mutual dependence was also initiated by the first people of this country welcoming the newcomers to this land. That welcoming introduced a relationship of mutual benefit.

    Next came the era of what people would call dominance or colonization or oppression. That came about in different ways. One of the first changes from the era of mutual dependence to that of domination came primarily around economy. Fur traders eventually took control of the economy of the first nations people.

    From that relationship came the notions of Christianization and civilization, in which the churches played a role and in which agents of government came to Christianize and civilize Indians. That era began with an intent of trust from our people, for who were we to disbelieve a man in a black robe with a cross attached to his chest when he said he was a man of God? We were a trusting people and we believed the words of that man, but the representatives of that man came later and took the children away and brought them to the residential schools. That era was also one of administrative dominance of government over Indians.

¿  (0910)  

    Then came the treaty-making process, as compelled by the law of the land of Canada. The law of the land compelled Canada to enter into treaties with several independent Indian nations. From that treaty-making process, there are variations of what the understanding is of that treaty-making process. From the understanding that we received from the elders, it was again two sovereign nations coming together to share the land given to us by the Creator. It was intended to share the land.

    The understanding of the elders of the day was one of sharing, not of ownership. The concept of fee simple did not exist in our language, nor in our mindset, nor in our everyday relationship with the land. But the oral understanding that was reached was somewhat different from the written word that came after the understanding was reached. Hence, the unfortunate legacy of land claims and court cases to clarify what was meant and what was done since the treaty-making process began.

    From my understanding, the treaties were intended to have two parties, one representing the Indians, one representing the Queen. The Queen gave a list of promises, including Her Majesty's benevolence, which we have not sought yet. It included promises that are now translated into education, what people would now call health care, or what people would now call economic development.

    On the side of the Indian people, they agreed to share the vast lands that were recognized as theirs by the law of the land. My grandmother was present at the signing of Treaty No. 8, and her recollection, in clear words, was use of the land by the settlers for what the settlers would use on the land of the day. The plows of the day were no deeper than the tip of my finger to the bottom of the palm, so any farmer who has a plow that goes from the tip of my finger to the end of my elbow is breaking the treaty, not just breaking ground. There was no discussion of what lay beneath those. Only the written text made reference to that after the verbal understandings were reached.

¿  (0915)  

    So the original people agreed to share the land, and they also agreed to abide by the laws of the Queen, to be good citizens. Basically, that was what was agreed to. There was no relinquishment of our culture, of our language, of our spirituality, of our relationship with the land. There was no relinquishment of our right to govern ourselves. In the era of dominance, in the era of colonialism, strange relationships evolved between the signatories of those treaties, which are now the law of the land and have been continually supported by Supreme Court decisions as the law of the land.

    The fourth era that the royal commission talked about is one of reconciliation, of working together in a mutually beneficial way. It is that era that we now would like to see brought as a reality.

    The Chair: At this time, I would just mention that you have used up a third of your time, and that's fine. But I hope you will allow time for questions and I hope you will talk about Bill C-7, because that's why we came here. But all this is very interesting, so I'll leave it with you.

    Mr. George Calliou: One of the unfortunate realities is that everything is related to Bill C-7. If the standing committee dissects and only makes references within narrow boundaries of each page of the legislation, then I believe the standing committee is not fully addressing the concerns of first nations people. I respect your comments, sir, but as I said before when I started, there is a spiritual connection. There is a spiritual realm in this process, and it connects with the history. It connects to who we are, and I wish you would show respect to the totality of what the legislation impinges on. Certainly, I would hope the standing committee would be the lead player in ensuring that the fourth era, that of reconciliation and rebuilding, is first and foremost in your minds in relationship to aboriginal peoples in Canada.

    The legislation that you refer to as Bill C-7 is legislation that has very wide implications in a wide variety of areas affecting first nations people. The Athabasca Tribal Council is respectful of the efforts, is respectful of the Government of Canada, and is respectful of the work of this committee. The Athabasca Tribal Council is currently engaged in an effective partnership with industry and with the Government of Canada in the economic realm. That's a step toward reconciliation, toward recreating our reality.

    The Athabasca Tribal Council and its member nations are also respectful of the administrative requirements and the many reports. As the Auditor General recently indicated, first nations people are required to file up to 168 reports, and it takes a lot of time to engage in that kind of process. While there is a need for clarity and a need for certainty in the era of administration and in what people refer to as accountability—and accountability in this context is unfortunately narrow—I would like to encourage the committee to expand accountability to include the spiritual reality of the treaties, the sacredness of those treaties, and the constitutional and legal parameters of those treaties and those relationships with first nations people.

¿  (0920)  

    While we also would need certainty and clarity in our administrative reality, we believe the intent of Bill C-7 addresses partly some of those needs, but we are concerned about the absence of true governance. True governance is a process that is not necessarily just administrative, but is involved in nation-building. That was one of the key recommendations of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples.

    It was also recognized as a key ingredient in the Gathering Strength response of the federal government. That governance will be the result of deliberate, respectful nation-building, to achieve the realization of the intent of nation-to-nation relationships, as recognized by the law of the land. Bill C-7 fails to address that in a real, meaningful way, and we want to express our concern in that area. While we certainly recognize the need for accountability, we also submit that accountability does not just come from one cultural perspective, but from what is truly a partnership perspective.

    We also have concerns that there are implications to the current realities. For example, there are implications to subsuming the Indian Act—and thus Indians—under another piece of legislation, without the thoroughness of research and study. We do not disagree with the intent of the Canadian Human Rights Act, but arbitrarily connecting the Indian Act and subsuming it under the Canadian Human Rights Act would cause some uncertainties in regard to the true spirit and original intent of the treaties. Bill C-7 does not adequately reflect the spirit and intent of those treaties.

    Certainly, as I indicated, that Athabasca Tribal Council and its member first nations wish to continue to partner with the Government of Canada and others in achieving a just society for our people and a just relationship with our partners in what we proudly call Canada.

    Thank you very much.

¿  (0925)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much. There are 20 minutes left, so we'll do a 5-minute round first, beginning with Mr. Vellacott.

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

    My question off the top is one that relates to comments you made at the very end. I'm interested in and intrigued about knowing about something you said. You inferred that the Canadian Human Rights Act would in some way undermine...I don't know if you said treaties or the relationship first nations have in Canada. Can you expand on that? Why do you feel making the Canadian Human Rights Act applicable here would necessarily undermine?

    Mr. George Calliou: It's not the applicability of the intent of the Canadian Human Rights Act, it's the arbitrary nature of subsuming, under another act—

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Arbitrary in the sense of what? Would there be things that are practised in first nations communities and so on that you feel would be forbidden?

    Mr. George Calliou: No. I'm talking about the principle, not so much the details.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Can you expand on that? When you say it's the principle, the fact that you should be under...you want your own first nations human rights act, is that what—

    Mr. George Calliou: No, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is it would be an arbitrary decision if I were to say that political party A no longer exists but is now only a chapter of political party B. That is a general principle that I don't think any current political party would adhere to. They would object vigorously that they retain their independence as a political party.

    So I'm talking about the principle that the Indian Act, outdated as it is and paternalistic as it is, would arbitrarily be subsumed—and I'm referencing my comments based on Mr. Nault's submission that the Indian Act would be arbitrarily subsumed under Canadian human rights legislation. Rather than allowing first nations people and first nations governments to arrive at a decision of mutual consent and meaningful consultation, other acts of Canada would become part and parcel of any new governance structure that first nations people would pursue.

¿  (0930)  

    The Chair: Mr. Vellacott, do you have another question? You have two minutes.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I guess I'm not really clear on that. For the record, I have aboriginal first nations friends and have talked to them. By “nation”, they don't mean a military, they don't mean a currency, they don't mean international trade policy, at least as I understand what they have communicated to me. I think the broader Canadian public sometimes gets confused on this, though, because they're thinking modern statehood when you say “nation”. They're thinking currency, military, international trade policy, and all these things.

    Is that what you have? We're talking about bands that are a couple of hundred people in size. We heard last week of some that have two dozen or so. Surely we're not talking about currency, a military, international trade policy, and all those things, are we? What I'm saying is that it confuses the public sometimes.

    Mr. George Calliou: That has been the unfortunate confusion created by a lot of people in the minds of Canadians as a whole. As a result, a lot of Canadians go against the concept of first nations governance.

    I think the concept of nationhood has to be determined by first nations as they evolve within the current relationship with Canada. The current relationship is largely administrative and one of a paternalistic relationship. Largely through the Indian Act, it's an administrative relationship, and we need to reconnect to the initial relationship of treaty-to-treaty.

    The relationship should be treaty-based. In that context, the treaties put the parameters of what those relationships should be. Certainly, the notion of currency is something that I don't think would be of great debate, because with the current reality of Canada and its currency, I don't think any small first nation would want to venture into that area.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

[Translation]

    You have the floor for five minutes, Mr. Loubier.

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

    To follow up on Mr. Vellacott's comments and on Mr. Calliou's presentation on contemporary relations between sovereign nations, in this instance his nation and ours, I would have to say that in this day and age, nations define themselves very little on the basis of their currency, their trade policy or even their foreign policy.

    Consider the situation in Europe. Fifteen countries, fifteen truly sovereign nations, have not had a national currency for some time now. They use a common currency and have adopted a common monetary policy. Shortly, they will be embracing a common foreign policy. Europe is constituted of modern nations with common principles and policies.

    I can appreciate the aspirations of First Nations. They want to establish a relationship with us as equals while pooling certain things. There are many areas in which we could pool our resources.

    Having said this, I'd like to ask Mr. Calliou whether the Minister of Indian Affairs consulted the Athabasca Tribal Council. The Minister has said to whomever is willing to listen that Bill C-7 has the support of the vast majority of Canada's First Nations, that he has attended 400 meetings with First Nations, that he was given some indication as to the direction to be taken to ensure improved governance of First Nations and that as a rule, some sort of agreement should be concluded, even if the Assembly of First Nations disapproved of the bill.

    How do you feel about the Minister's claims?

¿  (0935)  

[English]

    Mr. George Calliou: I have no scientific evidence to support what the minister said in terms of the kind of support he has. I can only respond in a general manner and say that the general understanding of quite a few first nations members is that a consultation process was initiated by the department, and many first nations have questioned what that consultation process truly is.

    A lot of the responses from the consultation process that was initiated were obtained through the Internet and through a 1-800 number, and certainly there was consultation with individual first nations across the country. However, I don't have any empirical data to truly answer your question in regard to how many person-to-person consultations took place. I can only respond to your question in that manner.

    With respect to currency, I agree that the European common currency, the euro, is one example of what people could arrive at. Historically, our currency was universal prior to the coming of foreigners to our land, and that currency was our relationship with Mother Earth and the different environmental realities of Canada itself. We used different currencies, such as the beaver pelt, the buffalo robe, or even horses after they were introduced. So the concept of currency in that context exists.

    If we were to divert ourselves into the discussion of common currency, we would probably have to marry that traditional common currency into Canadian currency and with consideration of modern currencies such as the euro. But that would certainly divert the importance of self-government, the importance of nationhood, and the importance of building a true governance structure for first nations people. I don't think we need to divert into military and currency discussions. We need to go back to discussing the true intentions of what the treaty was in the first place.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Mr. Dromisky, for five minutes.

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

    I was very pleased with your presentation and your somewhat philosophical viewpoint. I think it was more important from that viewpoint than it was from that of the realistic principle, the viewpoint of regarding the act itself. You're giving me a lesson in history, philosophy, religion, and so forth, all combined.

    In your latter statement right at the very end, you talked about a just society for your people. I have been involved with the first nations people since 1959. I have been very heavily involved for a great number of years, with a great number of people from many reserves. I have slept there, I have drunk there, I have done all kinds of things with these people, and all I can tell you is that there have been a great number of injustices done by a great number of first nations people to their own kind. They are people who are not searching for justice for their own people, but are searching for their own self-enrichment, whether it be power, whether it be money, whether it be status, whether it be other kinds of benefits that they can derive from their relationship within that council or within that organization, whether it's in general, as a committee chair, or whatever.

    What I'm trying to say is that this was a stimulus. The fact is that, for many years, there have been many injustices that could not be remedied by any portion of the Indian Act or any other act that we have. That led to the kind of thing we're dealing with right now, and that is the legislation before the House at the present time.

    You talk about justice for your people. What is it in the act that would prevent justice from taking place for your people? I see it as the opposite. I see it as a vehicle, an instrument to bring about justice, which at the present time cannot take place.

¿  (0940)  

    Mr. George Calliou: Do you want to give me five minutes to respond?

    The Chair: I'll give you three and a half.

    Mr. George Calliou: First, on the injustice that you talked about from your drinking days with first nations people, did you see it through sober eyes or drunken eyes?

    On the notion of injustices that you describe, those are the remnants of cultural oppression. They are what people tend to express as what people refer to as lateral violence. Rather than responding negatively to the oppressor, they respond negatively to each other. When you take away the responsibilities of the father or the mother by taking their children away, the end result is dysfunctional families. That eventually led to dysfunctional families because of children being taken away over multiple generations, as well as the negative impacts of residential schools, for example. So that's where some of what you referred to as injustices occurred.

    I don't disagree with the social context of your comments. The justice I talk about is not what...in my comments, I clearly referred to the fact that the legislation you now address is purely that: administrative legislation and policy. It does not deal with the full scope of what governance should be, from a first nations perspective. The justice that I talk about is the justice that prevails in terms of the relationship, the true intent and spirit of that relationship, and the true spirit and intent of treaties. That's the justice I'm referring to.

    Certainly, the intent of the governance act is to provide certain parameters, as approved by the minister and as approved by Parliament, for first nations people to address issues of leadership, to address the issues of administration, and to address the issues of accountability. Those are technical processes, those are administrative processes, as opposed to the true relationship of first nations people with Canada and an expression of the true intent and the true spirit of the treaty relationship. That's the injustice I'm talking about.

    The Chair: Thank you very much. We have three minutes left, and we leave them for you for closing remarks.

    Mr. George Calliou: Thank you very much.

    As I mentioned earlier, I was not scheduled to speak. Chief Jim Boucher was going to make a presentation, so the thoroughness of detailing the First Nations Governance Act item by item was not my intent. Therefore, as you indicated in a very nice way, my comments are best described as philosophical. Hopefully, you're not guided by your philosophical understanding. I would hope all the committee members truly respect the spiritual elements that are not addressed by this legislation, nor by any current relationship between the Government of Canada and first nations people. There is a spiritual reality to all the treaties, and some of us need to truly understand that before we can truly express a mutual, beneficial partnership.

    I wish you luck in your continued travels, and I pray for your safety, for your families, and for your children, and your grandchildren for some of you. Thank you very much.

¿  (0945)  

    The Chair: We thank you very much. It was an excellent presentation.

    Some of the important issues that you have raised are certainly in need of resolution, agreements, trust, and everything else. The problem we have is that everyone agrees that the Indian Act is not the vehicle. It's not a law, not a piece of legislation, that is useful to solving the real problems, but it's a piece of legislation that is there. We're trying to modernize one part of it, but we're not pretending that we are going to solve the other problems that do need to be solved. We just don't believe that's the vehicle to do it. So your comments will serve us well, and we thank you very much for your presentation.

    I noticed that when you talked of all the people you will pray for, at the end you looked at my face and you said “and grandchildren”. I guess you saw that I'm old enough to have them. Thank you very much.

    I open the floor to anyone who wishes to make a two-minute comment. Mr. Ken Janke has registered.

    Mr. Ken Janke (As Individual): Thank you. I owned Janke Excavating up here before you took away—

    The Chair: Thank you. We spoke before the meeting. We are inviting you to put on record the part of the discussion we had about your dealings with a first nations community and how, in your view, you ended up being a victim. That part could have something to do with Bill C-7. On the other issues that you have, as we promised you, the MPs will meet you afterwards, off the record, because we followed those rules through all of last week. We're not adding people as we go along, so this is the solution we found to deal with your problem.

    You now have two minutes, specifically on business transactions.

    Mr. Ken Janke: I was raised in the west and went through the Great Depression in Saskatchewan, so I know what it is to be super-poor. On self-government, my belief is that it's the same as when I left home. I took a packsack, made my own living in life, made my own mark in life, and have had it taken away from me now, when I'm getting older.

    I have confidential documents here to show that the Indians got $5.4 million in uncollectable native loans from our government—loans that we never got. Many of the same bands, companies, and individuals got several loans that were written off. The money went to several southern Alberta bands in their economic ventures, including the once-wealthy Stoney, the Sarcee, the Blackfoot, and the Blood. A couple of northern Alberta bands that collected millions of dollars from oil and gas also got money. Individual recipients included well-paid chiefs and councillors, as well as band members. We never got this to go into business. We never got any money from anything. We were self-governing and we made our own money. We didn't even borrow. We earned it as we went along and built up the business. I had mine taken away from me, and I don't feel too good about it.

¿  (0950)  

    The Chair: Mr. Janke, you have thirty seconds to tell us how it was taken away from you. I think it's important that you get that on record. At two minutes, we're cutting you off.

    Mr. Ken Janke: I rented crown land and built it up for 18 years. I got permits for everything I did. The land was not advertised or anything. It was sold right out from under me. They seized my buildings and everything, even though I had permits to do everything.

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Janke. The members of Parliament will now meet with you off the record, immediately.

    Does anyone else wish to make a presentation for two minutes? No?

    We will now suspend proceedings until we get to our next stop at Slave Lake, at three o'clock this afternoon.