AANR Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, February 25, 2003

·

1305

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

Mr. Ian McKay (Technician, Red Earth Cree First Nation)

The Chair

Mr. Ian McKay

·

1310

·

1315

·

1320

The Chair

Mr. Ian McKay

The Chair

Mr. Ian McKay

The Chair

Mr. Ian McKay

The Chair

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

Mr. Ian McKay

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Ian McKay

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Ian McKay

·

1325

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Ian McKay

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Ian McKay

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Ian McKay

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

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

Mr. Ian McKay

·

1330

The Chair

Mr. Ian McKay

The Chair

·

1335

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Ed Benoanie (Hatchet Lake Denesuline)

·

1345

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

Mr. Ed Benoanie

Mr. Pat Martin

·

1350

Mr. Ed Benoanie

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Ed Benoanie

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

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

Mr. Ed Benoanie

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell

Mr. Ed Benoanie

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, Lib.)

·

1355

Mr. Ed Benoanie

Mr. Rick Laliberte

The Chair

Mr. Ed Benoanie

The Chair

¸

1400

Mr. Charles Whitecap (Shoal Lake Cree Nation)

The Chair

Mr. Harold Kingfisher (Sturgeon Lake First Nations)

¸

1405

The Chair

Mr. Louis Wolverine (As Individual)

¸

1410

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Louis Wolverine

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Chief Susan Custer (Peter Ballantyne Cree Nation)

¸

1415

¸

1425

Chief Susan Custer

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief Susan Custer

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief Susan Custer

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief Susan Custer

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief Susan Custer

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief Susan Custer

¸

1430

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief Susan Custer

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Chief Susan Custer

Mr. Pat Martin

Chief Susan Custer

¸

1435

Mr. Pat Martin

Chief Susan Custer

Martin, Pat Member

Chief Susan Custer

Martin, Pat Member

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.)

Chief Susan Custer

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Chief Susan Custer

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Chief Susan Custer

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Chief Susan Custer

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Chief Susan Custer

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Chief Susan Custer

Mr. Charles Hubbard

¸

1440

Chief Susan Custer

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Chief Susan Custer

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Chief Susan Custer

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Chief Susan Custer

The Chair

Chief Susan Custer

The Chair

Mr. Graham Linklater (As Individual)

The Chair

Mr. Graham Linklater

The Chair

Mr. Graham Linklater

The Chair

Mr. Graham Linklater

The Chair

Mr. Graham Linklater

¸

1445

The Chair

Mr. Graham Linklater

The Chair

Mr. Graham Linklater

The Chair

Mr. Fred Ballantyne (As Individual)

The Chair

Mr. Fred Ballantyne

The Chair

Mr. Fred Ballantyne

The Chair

Ms. Eileen Linklater (As Individual)

¸

1450

The Chair

Ms. Eileen Linklater

The Chair

Ms. Eileen Linklater

Mr. Graham Linklater

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources

---

NUMBER 038

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, February 25, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

·  (1305)  

[English]

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

    We are pleased to welcome, from the Red Earth Cree First Nation, Chief Miller Nawakayas.

    Welcome. We have half an hour together, and we invite you to make your presentation, which will be followed by questions if you allow the time. But the time is yours.

    Mr. Ian McKay (Technician, Red Earth Cree First Nation): Just as a clarification, Mr. Chairman, I am not Chief Miller Nawakayas, I am Ian McKay.

    The Chair: I apologize. I looked at my notes when I should have looked up before me.

    Mr. Ian McKay: I want to speak at some length about our Red Earth Cree Nation and its efforts to develop first nation government as the people of Red Earth understand it. But before I get into that, I just want to express my appreciation to the standing committee for accepting me as an alternate spokesperson, I suppose, on behalf of the Red Earth Cree Nation. To the committee, I want to echo the welcome that was made by the speakers and chiefs before me. Welcome to the city of Prince Albert, and I hope you are enjoying our fine Saskatchewan weather.

    The Red Earth Cree Nation is situated east towards the Manitoba border, about 150 miles from the city of Prince Albert. It has a population of over 1,000 members. And we are a Cree people.

    Throughout the years I have been fortunate enough and privileged enough to work under several chiefs during their respective terms of office. The common mandate that has been exerted upon the chiefs and councils past and present has basically remained the same. The driving force behind Red Earth Cree Nation is always the development of first nation government, a responsible government that will serve the needs and aspirations of its people effectively and efficiently.

    To this end, Red Earth Cree Nation has several pieces of legislation in place, developed at the grassroots level. One of these documents outlines the organizational structure of Red Earth Cree Nation. It begins to exemplify how this first nation government is supposed to look, and how it's supposed to be put together.

    A companion document piece of legislation that flows from that organizational structure, that reflects that organizational structure, is the Red Earth Cree Nation convention. It speaks about how the political structure of the Red Earth Cree Nation government will begin to operate under systems, leadership selection systems, that will basically govern how the Red Earth people see themselves governing their lands; how the Red Earth people see governing themselves as a people; how they see themselves governing themselves and their programs and services; and how the people of Red Earth see those laws being enforced. Then we address the system based on first nations law.

    Flowing from the convention, we have the Convention Act, which speaks more clearly to how the structure of the government of the Red Earth Cree Nation will be implemented. From that Convention Act, specific systems of government begin to emerge. Some of those systems are being implicated by this Bill C-7 legislation. One piece of legislation it has direct implications for is the Red Earth Cree First Nation Election Act.

    To take a brief step back here, one of the first sections of our convention states, “Whereas God, our Creator put us here as first people”, as the first sentence, first statement, in our convention. That statement is reflected in our legislation, including our Red Earth Cree First Nation Election Act.

    “Whereas God, our Creator put us here as first people”; until we started discussing the issues around of the implications of Bill C-7, I never really understood or appreciated how strong a statement this really was. That statement is a reflection of the inherent right and treaty rights of the people of the Red Earth Cree Nation, and how they have chosen, as a people, to express that inherent and treaty right to govern themselves under their own system of law.

    How does that relate to this Bill C-7 initiative? The way we have heard and understood it, Bill C-7 proposes to introduce federal policy on how first nations should develop leadership codes. What does that do to Red Earth's own?

    The people of Red Earth, the Red Earth Cree Nation, respect that their systems of government, their legislation, is designed for them. They do not propose, intend, or suggest in any way that their legislation will work for another first nation. Instead, they respect and recognize that what they have in place at their first nation level works for them.

    They respect that what other first nations do, what other first nations have in place, works for them. In that respect, the inherent right and the treaty rights of the Red Earth people are specific to the Red Earth people. They do not in any way wish to impose any of their systems, their traditions, their systems of government on any other first nation.

    Bill C-7, the way we understand it, does not allow for that. Instead, it proposes a one-size-fits-all. In our minds, that cannot work. It has never worked. I'm sure the committee has heard evidence from your hearings across Canada of how federal policy has failed first nations over the years. I heard examples this morning from some of the speakers on some of the failures of those policies.

    The way we understand this process, and the evidence being put forth to the standing committee here, is that it is supposed to assist, I suppose, the development of federal policy for first nations once again. We would suggest that perhaps this is not the approach to take.

    If this is not the process to take, then what is the process? What should be the process? I think I'm echoing some comments from other speakers when I say that the process should be treaty-based, government to government, first nation to federal Crown relations.

·  (1310)  

    This hearing today is intended to offer some input for the committee to take back and consider in rendering their recommendations on Bill C-7 legislation. Will the standing committee include as part of its recommendations that there should be a different process as well to return the courtesy that first nations across Canada are offering to the standing committee by extending their comments, their issues, their positions respecting this legislation, and return in a second round of hearings that will enable all first nations to speak on those issues that they identify as having priority?

    You have listened to comments on socio-economic issues, broader political issues that chiefs wish to raise with the federal Crown. I just want to go on record today as saying, support the efforts of our chiefs. I would like to think that I, more than anybody in the general public, at our first nation level anyway, appreciate and respect and understand the tremendous pressure that our chiefs and our councillors are under on a daily basis. And to hear our leadership portrayed in such a dismal, negative fashion throughout the media only adds fuel to my respect and understanding of the pressure on our leaders.

    Is there a different process? Yes. If our Red Earth people continue to support our leaders, our chief and council, and continue to mandate them to continue your work on first nation government development for our own first nation, then I, as a member of that group, continue to support that mandate, support the chief and council to fulfill that mandate. Who better than first nations people to decide what works for them instead of allowing outside legislation to determine what is best for them? History shows that it doesn't work. It has never worked, and it probably never will.

    I come to you under very difficult circumstances. I must extend apologies on behalf of my chief, Chief Nawakayas, who couldn't be here personally. We recently lost a very prominent leader in our community, and he had to share that loss with his colleagues in Saskatoon at the chiefs meeting. Following that, he'll be on his way through here to be home with the family.

    I'm not sure if any of the members of the committee here know Alvin Head, but I'm sure the audience behind me is really familiar with him. He passed away just this past Saturday, and one of his favourite sayings was, “There are basically three types of people--those who make things happen, those who don't know what happens, and those who don't know what happened.”

·  (1315)  

    If we are to make this work, this nation-to-nation relationship, this treaty relationship, this government-to-government relationship, then everybody has to know what happens. And what is happening is not acceptable to first nations that have spoken against Bill C-7 legislation, and it's certainly not acceptable to the people of the Red Earth Cree Nation government.

    That, Mr. Chairman, is my position paper. I must apologize, I don't have a formal written paper to share with the committee. However, if it is your wish, I can certainly transfer it to you in written form at a later date, and forward it to your attention and to the committee's.

·  (1320)  

    The Chair: We'd appreciate that. We thank you for your presentation. Whatever you present to the clerk will be translated and distributed to all members, even those who are not here.

    Everything you've said has been recorded. Ottawa is already aware of it through a direct line, and they're typing it. So it is a matter of record.

    It's my privilege to learn many new sayings in these hearings, and I missed something on yours, about there being three kinds of people. You said there are people who make things happen, people who don't know what happened...and I missed the third one.

    Mr. Ian McKay: Yes, I think I made a mistake in that quotation.

    The Chair: That was my polite way of telling you that.

    Voices: Oh, oh!

    Mr. Ian McKay: There are three types of people--those who make things happen, those who watch things happen, and those who don't know what happened.

    The Chair: Very good. Can I use that some day? Do you give me permission?

    Mr. Ian McKay: It's not my place to give you permission.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Let's see, we have 12 or 13 minutes. We'll do two five-minute rounds.

    Mr. Vellacott, five minutes.

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

    Again, our condolences to you, Ian, and to your chief and family there. We express our regrets about the passing of a dear one.

    To start this off, have you had opportunity as band members, in home gatherings or at large group meetings or whatever, to discuss the good and bad points of Bill C-7? Have you had any community meetings, or band meetings?

    Mr. Ian McKay: I personally have attended at least two membership meetings and several meetings with chief and council back home. But as to whether or not the discussion has been one way or the other, the focus of the discussion has always been on issues other than this.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Was there a little bit of a give-and-take with respect to Bill C-7, though, within the membership, or was it just saying that this bill was coming? Was there a little bit of talk back and forth about the bad points of it, and the things that weren't workable or good, and so on? Did an actual exchange go on back and forth with the people and with chief and council?

    Mr. Ian McKay: I don't know if this is a proper summation, but the underlying theme seemed to be that whatever the people of Red Earth do, regardless, this legislation will in all likelihood come through anyway, but what can we do as a first nation to respond to it in our own way?

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: It seems to me that one possible scenario would be to stay with the existing Indian Act, unamended, unchanged, just exactly as is, and that carry on until such future point as there is a self-government or a self-determination agreement. I don't know how close you would be in respect to that in your band situation there. That might be a few years off--five years, ten, maybe twenty; I don't know the exact status.

    So I'm asking, do you want to stay with the Indian Act as is, or do you want any transitional thing in between until you get to a full-blown, full-fledged self-government agreement?

    Mr. Ian McKay: My response is that the Indian Act has always been there. The people of Red Earth issued their mandate to develop a system of government to their chief and council over the years, and that has been a continuous effort, a continuous process of development.

    So regardless, the Indian Act has always been there, and they have worked despite its being there.

·  (1325)  

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: It looks as though you've done some good work, as mandated by your band members, so you have some of these things in respect to leadership selection, financial management, accountability, and the administrative and so on. Can you simply take what you've already developed and fit it into Bill C-7? Would that be possible?

    Mr. Ian McKay: I would rather see our chiefs and the federal Crown at both sides of the table negotiating these types of issues--i.e., self-government arrangements.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: That's down the road, though, isn't it? I mean, are you into those discussions already, or...?

    Mr. Ian McKay: Why does it have to be down the road?

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I don't know if it has to be. I don't think it should be, in fact. I guess what I'm asking you is, until you're at the table...and the sooner you get at it, the better, I guess, is what you're saying. And you'd like that to be the immediate next step tomorrow, or next month or whatever, rather than Bill C-7.

    Mr. Ian McKay: We recognize and appreciate that not every first nation is the same. We are a very diverse people. The stage of development that Red Earth is at is probably the same as it is for our neighbouring reserve just down the road, or very similar. But that's not to say that our two first nations are at the same stage of development as, say, another first nation maybe 50 miles down the road.

    So I think the flexibility should always be there for every first nation to be able to sit across the table from federal ministers, from provincial ministers, to discuss these types of arrangements directly.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Thank you.

    The Chair: Mr. Dromisky, five minutes.

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

    We've been listening to witnesses who've had a great variety of perceptions and opinions regarding Bill C-7. The chiefs we have been listening to predominantly have one position. In my mind, as a new member of this committee, they're afraid. They seem to be afraid of a lot of things, and collectively they've united. The grassroots people from many of the reserves are telling us different things that are occurring on the reserves, how they're being treated and the kind of injustices that exist--unfairness, discrimination, corruption, and so forth. All these kinds of accusations have been made at this table.

    Now we have this situation. We have the government stepping in, coming with the proposal of Bill C-7, with involvement from grassroots people, with the chiefs; in other words, the various reserves and all of the first nations people. The government is coming forth with a proposal to get the people involved, to create something that will solve many, we hope, of the problems being revealed by the grassroots people from coast to coast, not just here.

    How can you maintain a position, or how can the chiefs maintain a position, that will prevent improvement taking place so that many of these injustices taking place on so many of our reserves are not rectified and eliminated? Why prevent a move in that direction? Why this obstacle?

    You're speaking on behalf of your chief. Do you have an answer? Is it a fear of losing power, a fear of being accountable, accountable to the people on your reserve? What are the fears?

    Mr. Ian McKay: I don't know if they're fears or some other sentiments, but as I said before, nobody respects and recognizes and understands the pressure on our chiefs and councils more than I do. I would just like to reiterate that thought.

    If there is a source, per se, for that fear, then I think it's a reflection of what little the federal government and the provinces have done for first nations, and how there are these obstacles in place that do not enable our chiefs to sit across the table from the ministers responsible at any given time to discuss these issues, what their visions and aspirations are on behalf of their people.

    Until then, the existing arrangements, the existing relationship, between first nations and the federal Crown are so limited it's impossible for any chief and council anywhere in Canada, I suppose, to be able to meet all the needs and aspirations of their own people. Until then, until the negotiations are truly under way, those fears will probably remain.

    I've heard some of those fears shared by our own members at home.

·  (1330)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. McKay. We have two and a half minutes left. We ask you to make closing remarks.

    Mr. Ian McKay: Bill C-7, according to my understanding, is not the sole issue here. Rather, Bill C-7 is starting to emerge as part of a suite of legislation. There are other issues with that suite that I can't touch on at this time, but I think Bill C-7 is so limited in vision that it will not enable first nations leadership to enter into any negotiations that deal with, say, resource- and revenue-sharing arrangements, as one step forward, one positive step forward, to alleviating some of the fears of the membership, thereby enabling them one more step towards independence and, if I can use a favourite saying of the general public, away from being a burden on the taxpayers.

    The Chair: We thank you very much. You gave very good information that will be helpful. Thank you.

    Just to share with colleagues and the people in attendance, some people tend to call what we do here “road shows”, and when you're on a road show sometimes the publicity before you and after you leaves something to be desired.

    I'll give you an example from the Turtle Island News, “North America's #1 Native weekly newspaper”. It talks about a number of things, and then the editor says that there has been no consultation; that hearings under way will not visit aboriginal communities; and that those appearing at hearings are given only five minutes to present.

    We have slots of two minutes, of ten, twenty, thirty, and forty-five minutes, of one hour, and of one and a half hours. We don't have a five-minute slot. But when we go to these communities, this is what the people will believe from us.

    So it does cause us problems, and I just wanted to share this with you.

    Is Chief Harry Cook here, from the Lac La Ronge Indian Band? They were scheduled for one o'clock. Therefore, that has passed.

    Is Chief Richie Bird here, from the Montreal Lake Cree Nation? They were scheduled for 1:30. That time has passed.

·  (1335)  

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: If they happen to have been delayed for some reason, will they get a chance later?

    The Chair: I'm getting there.

    I'm a stickler for time, but I try to be as accommodating as I can. The Hatchet Lake Band was scheduled to appear at 11 o'clock this morning. They are here now, and I invite Ed Benoanie to appear for 30 minutes at this time.

    We invite you to make your presentation. We are together for 30 minutes, which will be followed by questions and answers, if you allow time to do that.

    Please proceed.

    Mr. Ed Benoanie (Hatchet Lake Denesuline): Thank you, Mr. Chairman and panel members.

    I'm a member of Hatchet Lake Band, a councillor elected to a three-year term, and I'm in my first year. I'm a treaty Indian, a grandson of a signatory, a chief who signed the treaty for Hatchet Lake Band, Treaty 10. And I'm a provincial and federal taxpayer.

    Is that good enough? Do I qualify for a presentation? Okay.

    Thank you again, and good afternoon. It's a pleasure to be here. I had kind of short notice before I got dragged into this panel hearing. I've done it in the past with other panels, so I made some quick notes, met with some people, and got the issue clarified in my mind on what I'm going to be talking about and what the objectives of a hearing about Bill C-7 would be.

    As for the history, Hatchet Lake Band had never, I guess since the early 1950s, been under the election act of the Indian Act. We had our own band custom act. We had practised that act since the 1950s. The history of how it came to be is somewhat foggy. When we talk to the Indian Affairs department, they say, well, this happened, and this happened, and therefore...we really don't know.

    My uncle, Celestin Benonie, was chief at the time. He was residing in Brochet, Manitoba, north of Reindeer Lake. He resided in Manitoba and fished and hunted in Saskatchewan, right on the borderline. He was the chief of the Hatchet Lake Band, and when the community came about through the fishing industry at Wollaston Lake, the Indian Affairs department came in with some members of their people and told our band members at the time, if you're accepting the treaty payment, you're going to have to select a chief. And they selected a chief. They selected councillors. A few years after that, they selected land and signed land as a reserve, without the consent of my uncle, the original chief.

    That's a very brief history. The people of the Hatchet Lake Band today know very little of what took place at the time. The land they use now was very different.

    This morning I listened to the elder who spoke in his language, and translated. I speak the Dene language very well, and I will practice it and speak it very well in the future. My four children speak it well, and they practice it in their traditional lifestyle in Wollaston. They are the Dene-speaking people of the north.

    We have tried to teach our MP how to speak it, but he has very poor words when he speaks it. He's still practising.

    Should I tell them our story, Rick? Maybe another day.

    The language I speak is very hard to understand if you do not know the native tongue. If you came to my community and you spoke the language you're using today, this so-called Bill C-7, the elders and the community members wouldn't have a clue what you were talking about--never mind the Indian Act.

    All they understand is the lifestyle of the people in the north and the treaty-making, the treaty process that was done. That's all they understand. The Indian Act is something on the back stage over there, still waiting to come into the light.

    

·  (1345)  

    The Chair: We thank you very much. It's very interesting to hear from someone, and you're not the first, who's hands-on and who knows exactly what's going on. Most people know what's going on, but when you're hands-on, you put a different perspective on it.

    You mentioned that somebody has to lose. My brother went to the horse races, and when he came back he said, “I picked a horse that was so good it took seven horses to beat it.” So I know what you're saying.

    Who'd like to go next, for five minutes?

    Mr. Martin.

    Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Sure, I'd be happy to, Mr. Chair, thank you.

    Thanks for your brief. It was interesting.

    Now, I take it from you--and if I'm not saying this in the way you put it to us, you can correct me--that the Indian Act is not really how you govern yourselves in your community. You pretty much do as you always have, and the only real relationship you recognize is the treaty relationship with the federal government.

    Therefore, Bill C-7 would be tinkering with the Indian Act without addressing the treaty relationship. Is that part of your frustration?

    Mr. Ed Benoanie: Yes. The treaty intended by my grandfather was to address a lot of the economic development issues up in the north, to make it a livelihood. When I see the articles of my grandfather's treaty, it puzzles me when I see the X of a chief and then an X of councillor being so identical. Two X`s? And it's an inhesion treaty? I do question it. I know the Indian Affairs department is listening, but still....

    I don't want to make it hard for anybody else, but then again, I think it should be revisited. Right now we're going through a process with north of 60, the so-called modern treaty, as the federal government wants to call it. Our elders say, we already did a treaty, why do you want to do it again?

    So it's hard for them to understand these things. As one of the three hardest languages in the world, trying to express the words we put on paper and trying to give it to their attention is more challenging.

    Mr. Pat Martin: It gets to be an issue of natural justice, I would even argue.

    I guess the point I would make then is when Bill C-7 passes...and some of us have already resigned ourselves, even though nobody seems to want it, to the fact that it's going to become law. As of June you will have two years to change the way you do business or a system will be imposed on you. How will you cope with the imposition of this new code that you neither need nor want, by your testimony?

·  (1350)  

    Mr. Ed Benoanie: The financial accountability is not an issue. That we do naturally as a people. But when it comes to other things that infringe on our hunting and trapping rights, by the provincial laws and by the NRTA, then it becomes an issue.

    The people will just keep on saying no. Even though you're going to impose it on us, we're going to say no. We're going to stand our ground. Whether there will be civil disobedience when the law is imposed on us, I guess that bridge will be a challenge when we get to it.

    Mr. Pat Martin: Would it be safe to say that we can anticipate further court cases? Indian Affairs says they're bogged down with court cases now; they're at impasse at virtually every juncture across the country. Would you anticipate that two years from the passing of this bill, when smaller communities either can not or will not comply with more change, you'll wind up in the courts?

    Mr. Ed Benoanie: We never referred our issues to courts before, but just the one land issue...with the federal government and Inuit people. But that's as a last resort. We want to negotiate these things first. We don't see any new future court cases. For one thing, we can't afford it. We have to give up a few economic development dollars and education dollars for court cases? No.

    So I think that would be a last resort. But when it comes to court issues, I can't respond to you with a yes or a no. It's a legal matter, and I'd rather have my legal beagles behind me when I present that.

    Mr. Pat Martin: Fair enough.

    Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Ms. Karetak-Lindell, five minutes.

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

    That was a very interesting presentation, because what you were saying is very similar to my background, and I'm from Nunavut.

    Are you involved in land claims negotiations now? Is that what you were saying, that you're trying to sign an agreement with the federal government for your part of Saskatchewan?

    Mr. Ed Benoanie: I was just looking to see if my lawyer was listening. He was here a while ago.

    Yes, we are negotiating. This morning we were doing that, and hopefully we will be doing it for the next.... The timetable is three years. We're also talking to the Inuit government, to the NWT, and also the federal government.

    So we are in negotiations, yes.

    Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: Is that a self-government agreement you're trying to get for your people, or a modern-day treaty, as you were talking about?

    Mr. Ed Benoanie: As I said, we want to call the treaty a modern treaty, but we want to say.... I guess the others want to say, give us back our land, give us back the way we use our land. We want to control it our way, and we want to sustain our land and what the land gives to us. We want to keep it the way it is and respect it.

    So I guess in a way we have a modern...or we have self-governing up in the north, yes.

    Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: Okay.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Vellacott?

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I'm fine.

    The Chair: Mr. Laliberte.

    Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Councillor--Chief, as in other times--I want to maybe get your perspective here. Since the Indian Act created the band, and recognized the band council structure--and you recall the history of treaty signatory, and you've as well adopted the custom band--where does this fit in as a nation?

    I know the Dene of the north have been having dialogues of uniting as Denesuline. But perhaps we could have your perspective, since you've also had experience in the Prince Albert Grand Council, on what role the tribal council plays in governance. Should the federal government be looking at the entire governing structure of nations, tribal councils, bands in the whole country as opposed to just looking at the 650 relationships it has with the existing Indian Act bands?

·  (1355)  

    Mr. Ed Benoanie: Tribal councils play a role in a technical capacity in terms of putting structures together and assisting us in what governance should look like. We, as a people, as a Dene nation, in a lot of Dene gatherings over the past 11 to 12 years, have always said “Unite the Dene”. I think there are 16 bands in the north...unite, and they come from Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and the Northwest Territories. They're forming their own tribal council, and they can speak in one language that everybody understands. Well, some will have to wear headphones, but the other side of the table won't.

    Does that answer your question?

    Mr. Rick Laliberte: Yes, thanks.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    You have five minutes for closing remarks, if you have anything to add.

    Mr. Ed Benoanie: I know it's not part of the presentation, but since you're the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources, I want to point out also that Hatchet Lake Band and its six communities in the north have done a lot of provincial studies and a lot of research on land use. It's information that's available today. I could bring it to someone's attention, perhaps Rick's attention, and show you on the map how much we've been using this land for many years, right into the territories. This is provincial I'm talking about. It covers almost one-third of Saskatchewan.

    Today we are imposed upon by too many laws, provincial laws, in the north, and the elders are very frustrated and disappointed by the way in which they are asked to hunt and trap. The mining companies and the development in the north, whether it's tourism or mining, have never addressed our communities before they've gone ahead. The natural resources are there.

    Again, my grandfather never gave up--he wouldn't give up--the federal government's so-called surrendered lands. We have documents in front of us now, testimony from the elders and the land users, and also testimony from the elders in the north territories.

    So we are in a stage of wanting to negotiate this issue. We can work together. We can live side by side; whether it's non-first nations or a Cree Dene brother, brothers in the west and south, it's workable. I'm always optimistic about working together as people, and I think to make a better Canada we can work together.

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

    To members, in our briefing books we have the maps referred to, of all the treaties.

    Thank you, sir. We appreciate that.

    Is Chief Gilbert Ledoux from the Muskeg Lake Cree Nation here? Or is there a substitute here representing Chief Ledoux?

    Is Chief Susan Custer from the Peter Ballantyne Cree Nation here? She's only due to appear at 2:30, but if we could be accommodated, it would be appreciated.

    If you wish to have a few minutes before you present, we have three two-minute presentations that could go before. Would that help?

    Okay, we'll do that. Thank you.

    I invite Charles Whitecap to make a spontaneous presentation of two minutes.

    Welcome.

¸  (1400)  

    Mr. Charles Whitecap (Shoal Lake Cree Nation): Tansi, how are you, and comment allez-vous?

    I just want to open my remarks with a statement made by Jean Chrétien, the then minister, in quoting the Queen, that the Queen recognized “the importance of full compliance with the spirit and the terms of your Treaties”. This document I'm quoting from is one we gave to you. It's a companion document to Chief Marcel Head's presentation.

    The other quote I'd like to have recorded, for your information, is from the opening remarks by Prime Minister Trudeau in the constitutional conferences. He stated that one does not necessarily begin with the inclusion of unconstitutional documents of barely perceived prepositions and prescriptions; that we do not have to look very far afield in the world to see places where fine constitutional praises and pronouncements are but a coverup of general denial of rights where some groups in society are concerned.

    The Prime Minister also said that we in this country do not seek a constitution that is nothing but a paper monument for the rights that are buried under empty words; that we seek constitutional provisions that have practical meaning and benefit for the people they concern.

    Throughout we have more or less condemned the First Nations Governance Act, Bill C-7. And the onus is on the one who criticizes to try to come up with an alternative of some sort. The only alternative that we see in Shoal Lake Cree Nation is empowerment--that is, empowering the treaty-making process.

    I use the term Shoal Lake Cree “Nation” because I feel we meet the international criteria of nation, having an identifiable territory, population, language, and culture.

    The Chair: Thank you very much. We were close to three minutes.

    Harold Kingfisher is next with a two-minute presentation.

    If there are others in the room who have not presented or who are not scheduled to present, we will accommodate everyone who wishes to do that.

    Mr. Kingfisher.

    Mr. Harold Kingfisher (Sturgeon Lake First Nations): I am elder Harold Kingfisher from Sturgeon Lake Cree Nation, the William Parks Band once upon a time, before the Department of Indian Affairs changed it to Sturgeon Lake Band.

    I too have worked with the Indian Act for a long time. It took me to court. I have seen my first nation taken to court, and I have seen my first nation hang itself over the Indian Act because of the control they had over first nations. I have seen Indian Affairs hitting my first nations people's elders on an Indian reserve because of the way the Indian Act controls first nations. I have seen Indian Affairs not give rations to first nations people under the Indian Act because they didn't believe in the Department of Indian Affairs.

    I have seen these things happen in the last 50 years. I'm 70 years old now, and this thing has taken me to court. It has put me in jail for four years. I was trying to help my people. People were starving on my reserve, and didn't have housing in the urban area. I tried to help these people.

    Bill C-7 is not going to help that situation. As a treaty Indian, I believe in my treaties. I believe in the negotiations of first nations people, because the Minister of Indian Affairs doesn't have a mandate to negotiate with first nations people on treaties. Only the Prime Minister of Canada has a mandate to negotiate with first nations people in Canada for treaties. The Minister of Indian Affairs' mandate is to implement, and to abolish first nations people.

    Before you shut me down, I want to read you a quote that I found in one of the Indian acts, made in 1920 by Duncan Campbell Scott, Deputy Superintendent of Indian Affairs. He was also a famous poet. What he said encapsulates the prevailing attitude of the day:

Our Object is to continue until there is not a single Indian in Canada that has not been absorbed into the body politic, and there is no Indian question, and no Indian department....

    This is the mandate you people have in trying to implement Bill C-7. We know we have to have accountability. We know all the things that have to happen. I myself was a chief for nine years, and a councillor for twelve years. I know what the mandate of the Indian Act is for first nations people.

¸  (1405)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much. We appreciate your presentation.

    I don't think anyone in this room disagrees that the quote you put in was said. It was the intent, and that's why it's so difficult to correct it, because it's still in the Indian Act, directly or indirectly. As a Canadian, I'm ashamed of the intent of our government of the day.

    I invite Louis Wolverine for a three-minute presentation. I gave the others an extra minute as well.

    Mr. Louis Wolverine (As Individual): Good afternoon. I am a member of the English River First Nation in northwestern Saskatchewan.

    Life on our reservation has improved under the first nations government administration than when it was under the administration of the Department of Indian Affairs. I must admit that much. However, our people are still living with much frustration and anger. There also is great division among our people. There's not much unity. People are not together. There's a great deal of hardship. So great division still exists.

    On our reservation, dialogue and consultation between the federal Department of Indian Affairs, the first nations governments of our reservation, and the members of the reserves would be helpful in the development of the proposed First Nations Governance Act under the Indian Act.

    The Indian Act has been an act of oppression for our first nations people. Many of us are aware of that. The confinement, living within the boundaries of reservation life, has also been a segregation and a very oppressive life for our people. We are all aware of that. It has been segregation from the rest of society in this country.

    I humbly request that the proposed Indian governance be designed to give us back our freedom, our dignity, our independence, and unity among our people and the rest of the people in Canada. That is my request.

    I thank you very much for allowing me to make my presentation and express my true feelings.

¸  (1410)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much. We appreciate your presentation.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I just want a clarification here. I'm not sure, but I think he said at the beginning of his written presentation that “life on our reserve has improved under the first nations government administration”.

    What is meant by that?

    The Chair: Could you clarify that for us, please?

    Mr. Louis Wolverine: For a long time we have lived under the government, under the Department of Indian Affairs. We had no control over our lives in many ways. It was always the federal government departments that made decisions for us on how we should live and how we had to live.

    I don't know how many of you are aware of this, but in the last few years there has been downsizing at the Department of Indian Affairs and transferring of some programs to Indian reserve band governments.

    This is what I am referring to when I say there have been some improvements. However, there is still a lot of frustration, and I believe the source of that is the Indian Act. Because we are still governed under the Indian Act, regardless of what governments administer the way we live.

    I hope I've made myself clear on that.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Yes, thank you.

    The Chair: I'd like to ask if Chief Gilbert Ledoux, from Muskeg Lake Cree Nation, is here and prepared to make his presentation.

    I have no other individuals who wish to make a presentation. Therefore, our last presenter will be Chief Susan Custer from the Peter Ballantyne Cree Nation.

    Welcome, Chief. We will have 30 minutes together. We invite you to make your presentation. If you allow time, we will ask some questions.

    Please proceed.

    Chief Susan Custer (Peter Ballantyne Cree Nation): [Witness speaks in her native language]

    Welcome to the Peter Ballantyne Cree Nation territory. I am Chief Susan Custer of the Peter Ballantyne Cree Nation.

    We are a very large first nation with multi-communities. On behalf of the membership of the Peter Ballantyne Cree Nation, I welcome the members of the standing committee. I also wish to welcome those who are in attendance today--elders, other members of first nations, other aboriginal people, the media, and everyone else who is here for this very important gathering.

    I am pleased to have this opportunity to address in person the members of the aboriginal affairs standing committee as the committee makes its way across Canada to listen to the valid and grave concerns of first nations regarding the federal government's introduction of Bill C-7, or what has been labelled the First Nations Governance Act.

    We, at the Peter Ballantyne Cree Nation in northern Saskatchewan, in the territory of Treaties 6 and 10, are more concerned with treaty recognition and rights than we are in redefining the Indian Act, its laws and its regulations. In that respect, we are puzzled by INAC's insistence and expensive efforts to keep pursuing something that has very little relevance to the people of our first nation.

    The Prince Albert Grand Council provides for consultation with all those people and organizations that make up the grand council. We know that we are heard at Prince Albert Grand Council when we express our concerns and the issues that affect our people and ourselves. Those issues include such critical matters as on-reserve housing; employment opportunities for our members; the fetal alcohol syndrome problems we are facing; the care and education of the first nations; many health issues; and the rights of first nation members.

    Nowhere in the First Nations Governance Act do we see these issues addressed, either directly or indirectly. We see the imposition of further INAC regulations on our first nations, and therefore further restrictions on the work we do with our membership.

    How, for example, does the imposition of a leadership selection code on a first nation that has always known how to select its leader help the members of the Peter Ballantyne Cree Nation? How does a financial management code help to send more of our youth to post-secondary education when its restrictions and reductions in funding continue to make it so difficult for our young people to access the educational tools they need to escape poverty and become contributing members of society and culture?

    The Peter Ballantyne Cree Nation is made up of eight communities spread over a vast area in northern Saskatchewan. It takes a full day of travelling to go from our community of Sturgeon Landing to another of our communities, Southend. Try to imagine what this means in terms of administration, time, and the use of our resources.

    At this time I would like to show you a video, a slide presentation. The video highlights some of the programs being delivered in the communities. It is an example of how strategic planning and working together with appropriate funding can result in effective program and service delivery. It is a developing model that includes community input through the use of local health committees and essential incorporated board of directors.

¸  (1415)  

    The health board is made up of chiefs, health portfolio councillors, the board members from each community, and the membership at large.

    Peter Ballantyne Cree Nation health services can be used as one example of a community-based model that strives to meet the needs through community input and that prioritizes capacity-building at the local level. It is by no means a complete or finished model, as it continues to grow and to develop with time and as funding is made available.

    In the video, you will see programs that are offered through all age groups, focusing on the individual, the family and the community, and that are targeted to meet the needs of the whole person, including the mental, the physical, the emotional, and the spiritual aspects.

    [Video Presentation]

¸  (1425)  

    Chief Susan Custer: Thank you very much, Martin.

    I'll answer questions, if there are any, but I'd like to make a final comment at the end.

    Thank you.

    The Chair: We thank you very much for an excellent presentation. It was very touching. You have beautiful children. And you're right, it's all about children. There's not a person in this room who's not trying to make it a better world for them.

    I'm one of the oldest here, so I know we're not going to fix all the problems before I move on, but we're going to do our best.

    Five minutes, each party.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Mr. Chair, will she have time at the end?

    The Chair: I'll make sure she does.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Okay.

    It's good to see you again, Susan. You've probably been following some of the Hansard transcripts from over the last week or so. Have you been following some of the witness testimony given over the last week in Red Deer, Alberta, and up into B.C. and so on?

    Chief Susan Custer: No, I haven't had time.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Well, some of the stuff we've been hearing has been fairly consistent from lots of first nations leadership--i.e., set aside Bill C-7, go back and start all over again, that kind of thing.

    Perhaps I can hear from you your view, and just get that on the record. You are quite of the view, are you, that we should just set aside Bill C-7, work hard on the self-government, self-determination agreements, and get those in place, the sooner the better? Is that kind of where you're at, that we should just stay with the problematic, troubled Indian Act as is?

    Chief Susan Custer: There is no way Peter Ballantyne Cree Nation will accept any of the First Nations Governance Act right now. Foremost and uppermost, Peter Ballantyne Cree Nation wants their treaty rights recognized. It's the most important thing in any negotiation for funding, for education, for health, or for any of the reasons that tie us to the treaties.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Do you see Bill C-7 then as something that bleeds off time and energy and so on?

    Chief Susan Custer: I think it's a waste of time. That's what I think. I think it's a waste of time. It's a waste of money.

    If the federal government could see the housing conditions our people have to live with, if they could see, down to earth, at the grassroots level, the poverty our first nation members see and have to live with every day, they would use the money they're spending today on....

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Clearly, then, in your view there are more pressing priorities. That's been mentioned, that dollars should instead be put into housing and health and education.

    Do you have any codes in place that would suffice along the lines of simply fitting into Bill C-7 by way of leadership selection and--

    Chief Susan Custer: No.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: You don't have written codes for these areas, under band custom or any---

    Chief Susan Custer: Yes, we do, but I wouldn't want them to fall under the governance act. There is no way we would want that. Our structures and codes would come from the membership entirely. It wouldn't be what the federal government thought was good for us.

    They thought the residential school was good for us. We see now it wasn't. And yet we're supposed to be in a democratic society. When you impose legislation such as this, then are we living in a true democratic society? I would like an answer as well.

¸  (1430)  

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: You don't disagree that it's good to have in place good leadership code selection and good financial and administrative codes of your own production. You don't disagree that those are good things to have; just you don't like the imposition from outside.

    Chief Susan Custer: I don't like the imposition. The management code should be a mandate given to the chief and council from its membership.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Vellacott. I've reduced the time to four minutes, because we have four parties.

    Monsieur Loubier? Ça va?

    Then we'll go back to five minutes, with Mr. Martin.

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

    Thank you, Chief Custer, for a very beautiful presentation and a very powerful oral presentation. I agree with you that Bill C-7 shouldn't be the priority for people, and shouldn't be the priority for this government, when there are so many pressing and urgent basic needs that need to be met. I thank you for verbalizing that better than I could.

    Your argument was that there should be more concern with treaty rights and less concern with Bill C-7 because the bill is not relevant to the day-to-day issues, and not priorized in terms of the issues your people want addressed at this point in time.

    Could you speak to that again, please?

    Chief Susan Custer: I would like to say that if our treaty rights to shelter were met, if every child out there had shelter, without the overcrowding, then the health issues would diminish. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure that out.

    If you come from a good home, without crowding, without having to sleep on the couch or on the floor, you are more prepared to go out and do daily activity in the classroom and participate in the activities with other children. We need to have the quality of life that other Canadians enjoy in urban centres.

    In the reserves, we don't have that quality of life. But that is what we need. I cannot express enough to you how urgent it is to meet that need. The Liberal government should come out there and see some of the houses.

    I could have done that today. I could have made a presentation on some of the housing, the deplorable housing that people have to live with. From there we have health issues, health issues that stem from poor housing, substandard housing.

    If we could alleviate some of those problems, if we could have more housing, more shelter, based on treaty rights and not on Indian Affairs policy, then we could become a healthier....

    I don't know what word I can use here to make you understand how very important it is for children to have a good home. It would alleviate so many problems. I have said that already, but it is a fact. The better your housing is, the healthier the people become.

    So you might want to spend money on housing, to build healthier communities, not just in the first nations but all over.

    Mr. Pat Martin: I am not optimistic that we're going to be able to stop this legislation. I guess that's the reality. It will be imposed on you and you will have two years to comply with it or else their default codes will be imposed on you.

    How will you cope with that? Where will you get the money to implement these new codes? Where will that money come from? What's the reality? How are you going to cope with this when it happens to you?

    Chief Susan Custer: If it's an imposition from the federal government, then I strongly suggest that they have the money for the administration of it. Not only that, I would suggest, and strongly suggest, that the federal government start using the treaty right to housing.

    I missed your question.

¸  (1435)  

    Mr. Pat Martin: I was just wondering where you thought you would be able to find the resources to even implement these changes when it has to come out of other programs, such as housing or health care.

    Chief Susan Custer: We definitely can never take money from housing or education or health. Those are mandatory things the federal government should give to the first nations, always. So if that's what they're going to do, they're going to have to have a lot of money, because there will be a lot of lawsuits. They can't even handle the lawsuits right now in Canada, and there will be a lot more than just a few, than just the residential school...and it's going to cost the government billions and billions of dollars.

    Martin, Pat Member : For something nobody wants.

    Chief Susan Custer: Yes, for something nobody wants.

    Martin, Pat Member : Thank you.

    The Chair: To you, Mr. Hubbard.

    Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Chief, that was a beautiful video presentation. I'm not sure who did it for you, but it certainly was very well done.

    Chief Susan Custer: It was our health department.

    Mr. Charles Hubbard: In terms of Bill C-7, you talk about housing. I guess housing is a major problem. All across the country the first nations are experiencing problems with housing. It's my understanding that for housing you are allocated so much money each year, and from that money you are able to determine so many new dwellings for different people on your first nation.

    But in terms of the other moneys you manage, the moneys for education, the moneys for general administration of the band and so on, do you have codes and written systems, or how do you...? For example, in a lot of society we talk in terms of how moneys are determined: who can spend moneys, who signs cheques, and who is able to distribute? Do you have codes already that more or less set down, in terms of your administrators and that, what we call “governance”?

    Chief Susan Custer: Yes, we do. We have personnel manuals. We also have salary scales. We also have in place how that money is to be spent in education. Again, it's always underfunded. How can you properly educate persons when you are always underfunded? It's a treaty right, but we are funded based on policy.

    Funds for our reserve schools are based on nominal roll. If you have some students missing on September 30, when the Indian Affairs people come to your school, then those children are not funded for that whole year. And they have to come; Indian Affairs has to come to our schools to come and do nominal rolls so that our schools can be funded.

    Now, as I said, if the children are absent there is no funding for that child. However, when you go to the provincial school, all the principal has to do is tally how many students that principal has in his school and then they are funded.

    Why are we treated that way? Why are we not treated equally to the provincial standards?

    It was proven, it was documented, that a provincial school got funding for a child for a whole year when that child attended only one day.

    Mr. Charles Hubbard: Do you have obligations, too, to white schools in terms of some of the children from your group going to other schools off reserve?

    Chief Susan Custer: We don't get their funding. The school that they attend gets their funding.

    Is that what you were asking?

    Mr. Charles Hubbard: It doesn't go through your band administration?

    Chief Susan Custer: It does not go through our band administration.

    Mr. Charles Hubbard: Through any local educational authority.

    Chief Susan Custer: Yes.

    Mr. Charles Hubbard: So money is difficult.

    Have you ever been under third-party management?

    Chief Susan Custer: Right now we are under third-party management.

    Mr. Charles Hubbard: Do you think most of that reason would be education and housing, or...?

¸  (1440)  

    Chief Susan Custer: Mandatory programs, yes; education, housing....

    Mr. Charles Hubbard: But health has a separate budget.

    Chief Susan Custer: That's right, they have a separate budget, and so does ICFS.

    Mr. Charles Hubbard: So the biggest concern you have is the lack of funding and trying to determine that education, your schools, are your biggest costs, and they are depleting the rest of your budget in terms of....

    No?

    Chief Susan Custer: No, it's not. Whatever money we receive for education is used only for education. Whatever money we do get for economic development we use for economic development. Whatever money we get for housing we use for housing.

    However limited we are at this point in time under third party, we try to use the money as best we can to try to accommodate the needs of the people of the membership of the Peter Ballantyne Cree Nation.

    Mr. Charles Hubbard: I'm just trying to think, though, in terms of, what do you think is the problem that created third-party management, which means that you're over your annual allocation of budget by 8% or 10% or more? Is it because of educational costs?

    Chief Susan Custer: No, it isn't. It goes way back to April of 1985, when overnight we had to accept.... I can't say offhand exactly how many Bill C-31 people the federal government did not provide funding for, or any land they didn't provide for. That is one of the reasons we're underfunded. It's not just something that happened overnight.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Hubbard.

    We have three minutes for closing remarks.

    Chief Susan Custer: Some of my band council members have made their way up here. They want to express a few words. I don't know if you've given them the time to do so.

    However, I want to say to you, the standing committee--to be crystal, crystal clear--that there is no part of the First Nations Governance Act that the Peter Ballantyne Cree Nation accepts.

    Thank you very much for listening.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Counciller Graham Linklater has registered for a two-minute comment.

    Mr. Graham Linklater (As Individual): Thank you very much. God bless you. I hope you have a Merry Christmas.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Graham Linklater: A certain gentlemen here asked a few questions, and if he wants to ask the same ones of me, I would certainly appreciate answering them.

    The Chair: There will not be questions. You have two minutes to make a personal comment.

    Mr. Graham Linklater: And when you say two minutes...?

    The Chair: You're using your time now.

    Mr. Graham Linklater: Very much so, and I think it's very unfair. It goes against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in regard to equality.

    The Chair: You're running on your time now.

    Mr. Graham Linklater: What you're doing here is total dictatorship, and I certainly don't appreciate it.

    What I see within the act is actual slander, libel, and defamation of character. I have prima facie evidence right here, and it is going to prevail. Those charges are going to go out to the federal government, because what you are doing here is damaging the first nations, saying that they are unable to manage their financial affairs, that they're incompetent, that they can't do certain things like so. But if you do a study of research, going back to 1985, as Chief Susan Custer just said, you will find a huge difference there. It's called improper funding, and it was done intentionally by the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada.

    So for doing certain things like so, you can get charges, and they are going to be liable, because we can use the law. It's called the due process of law, and what you're doing here, bringing in such an act, goes against treaty. You are breaching the treaty itself.

    Treaty 6 is a bilateral agreement between the Crown and the first nations. The royal proclamation of 1763 from King George III is included, and helps, too, in the protection of these first nations. A treaty, a contract made between two parties, whereby each agrees to follow the terms and conditions, could involve peace, argument, agreements between the two parties, and then agreement to see lands in return for certain rights and services. The legal status of treaties is under debate as of right now.

    A treaty Indian, a person whose forefather signed a numbered treaty in which land was exchanged for a certain list of payments, such as money, tools, and health and education benefits.... We still have those rights today, but what I'm looking at here is something that's unilateral.

    And I certainly don't appreciate clause 35. You people are trying to use this certain clause, because I know very well you studied human behaviour, which is part of psychology and anthropology. You're hoping that these people.... You know very well what their weaknesses are, and you're going to be using them to your advantages in order that these people fail--

¸  (1445)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much for your comments.

    Mr. Graham Linklater: Well, unfortunately, you gave me time, but I certainly don't appreciate that much time, because I can't say what I have to say.

    The Chair: You have put your message on the record.

    Mr. Graham Linklater: What you are practising here is absolute dictatorship. It's dictatorship.

    The Chair: You are now on the time of Eileen Linklater.

    Oh, you would like Fred to go before you? That's fine.

    Councillor Ballantyne.

    Mr. Fred Ballantyne (As Individual): I will speak my own language of Cree. I just want to know...Bill C-7 and Treaty 6 are different.

    [Witness speaks in his native language]

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Mr. Fred Ballantyne: [Witness speaks in his native language]

    The Chair: We thank you for your presentation. If you should decide to ask someone to put your presentation on paper, we would gladly make sure it gets put on record.

    Mr. Fred Ballantyne: Yes.

    The Chair: Eileen Linklater, your presentation, please.

    Ms. Eileen Linklater (As Individual): My name is Eileen Linklater and I'm from Peter Ballantyne Band, the third-largest band in Saskatchewan.

    I don't agree with this FNGA. The reason for that is the poor consultation with my band members. The amendments made by the federal government with regard to treaty in the Indian Act are too detrimental to our first nations--for example, the Bill C-31s. Legislation was made in 1985 to amend the Indian Act, and when the Bill C-31 legislation was passed, bands were forced to accept the legislation without proper consultation and funding.

    They were supposed to make membership codes, but some bands never did. Then we're told, if no codes were made within the two years, then the registrar from Ottawa would register these people to whichever band they came from. But my concern is that the majority of bands are under third party because of this legislation.

    So fix this problem first. Then maybe we can talk about this governance act. Fix this problem first, and properly fund these people. To my understanding, they're still being discriminated against, because they're not getting full funding in regard to housing, education, and so on. That's why we have so many social issues. That's why we're under third party.

    My understanding is that when Bill C-7 is passed, it means that whatever future amendments are made will always be to your liking, to your laws. But how about us? How about treaty? Even the Delgamuukw treaty; that's the whole idea of Bill C-7. But our forefathers made treaty with the Crown--with the Crown. You have to remember that.

    Bill C-7 will always override whatever first nations say about issues. It will always override. In the royal proclamation of 1763 there are supposed to be two, as partners, but with this it's not. The treaty was made as a bilateral agreement, treaty with two parties, first nations and the Crown. With Bill C-7 I see it as being unilateral, just one party, just one side.

    Look at you sitting here. Look at our first nations. How many first nations people do you see here? Are we supposed to agree on this? Is this supposed to go through?

    I don't think so.

¸  (1450)  

    The Chair: We thank you very much--

    Ms. Eileen Linklater: Democracy has to be accepted in order....

    What is it?

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Ms. Eileen Linklater: There is no democracy--

    Mr. Graham Linklater: Democracy has to be respected. A dictatorship cannot be supported.

    The Chair: Ms. Linklater, I will offer you time to make your last comments.

    Thank you very much.

    Is there anyone else in the room wishing to make a presentation of two minutes?

    The meeting is adjourned.