AANR Committee Meeting

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

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

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

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Wednesday, February 26, 2003

0805

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

Mr. Jack Hillson (As Individual)

The Chair

Mr. Randy Wallace (Chief Executive Officer, Battlefords Tribal Council)

0810

0815

The Chair

Mr. Wayne Ray (Mayor of North Battleford)

The Chair

Mr. Wayne Ray

Mr. Larry Doke (Regional Development Partnership, Battlefords Tribal Council)

0820

The Chair

Mr. Jack Hillson

The Chair

Mr. Randy Wallace

0825

The Chair

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

Mr. Randy Wallace

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Randy Wallace

0830

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Randy Wallace

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Randy Wallace

Le président

Mr. Yvan Loubier

Mr. Randy Wallace

0835

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

Mr. Randy Wallace

0840

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Randy Wallace

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Randy Wallace

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.)

The Chair

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

0845

The Chair

Mr. Randy Wallace

Mr. Jack Hillson

0850

The Chair

Chief Ernest Sundown (Big Island Lake Cree Nation)

Mr. Eric Tootoosis (Consultant, Big Island Lake Cree Nation)

0855

0900

0905

0910

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief Ernest Sundown

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief Ernest Sundown

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief Ernest Sundown

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

0915

Chief Ernest Sundown

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief Ernest Sundown

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief Ernest Sundown

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief Ernest Sundown

Mr. Eric Tootoosis

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief Ernest Sundown

Mr. Sol Sanderson (Consultant, Big Island Lake Cree Nation)

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

0920

The Chair

Mr. Sol Sanderson

The Chair

Chief Rod King (Lucky Man Cree Nation)

0925

0930

0935

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

0940

Chief Rod King

The Chair

Chief Rod King

Mr. Pat Martin

Chief Rod King

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

0945

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Stan Dromisky

Chief Rod King

Mr. Stan Dromisky

Chief Rod King

Mr. Stan Dromisky

Chief Rod King

Mr. Stan Dromisky

Chief Rod King

Mr. Stan Dromisky

The Chair

Chief Rod King

0950

The Chair

Chief Rod King

The Chair

Mr. John Victor Semaganis (As Individual)

0955

The Chair

Mr. John Victor Semaganis

The Chair

Mr. John Victor Semaganis

The Chair

Ms. Anna Hunter (Assistant Professor, Department of Political Studies, University of Saskatchewan)

The Chair

Ms. Anna Hunter

1000

1005

1010

1015

Ms. Coleen Thomas (As Individual)

The Chair

1020

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Ms. Anna Hunter

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Anna Hunter

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Anna Hunter

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

1025

The Chair

Ms. Anna Hunter

The Chair

Chief Lyle Whitefish (Agency Tribal Council)

The Chair

Chief Lyle Whitefish

1030

1035

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

1040

Mr. Robert Mitchell (Lawyer, Negotiator, Treaty Governance Process, As Individual)

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Robert Mitchell

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Robert Mitchell

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Terrance Pelletier (Executive Director, Treaty Governance Process, Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations)

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Terrance Pelletier

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Terrance Pelletier

1045

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Chief Lyle Whitefish

Mr. Pat Martin

Chief Lyle Whitefish

1050

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Terrance Pelletier

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

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

1055

Mr. Terrance Pelletier

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell

Mr. Terrance Pelletier

1100

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Terrance Pelletier

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

1105

Mr. Terrance Pelletier

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Terrance Pelletier

The Chair

Mr. Terrance Pelletier

The Chair

Mr. Terrance Pelletier

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Merrilee Rasmussen (Legal Counsel, Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations)

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Terrance Pelletier

Mr. Pat Martin

1110

Mr. Terrance Pelletier

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Terrance Pelletier

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Terrance Pelletier

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Terrance Pelletier

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Stan Dromisky

Mr. Robert Mitchell

1115

The Chair

Mr. Robert Mitchell

Mr. Terrance Pelletier

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Robert Mitchell

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Robert Mitchell

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Robert Mitchell

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Robert Mitchell

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Chief Lyle Whitefish

1120

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

The Chair

Chief Lyle Whitefish

Mr. Charles Hubbard

The Chair

Mr. Terrance Pelletier

1125

The Chair

Mr. Terrance Pelletier

The Chair

Mr. Jimmy Myo (Elder, Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations)

1130

1135

The Chair

Ms. Ethel Ahenakew (Member of the Outreach Committee, Member of the EcoJustice Committee of the Anglican Church of Canada, St. John's Anglican Cathedral)

The Chair

Ms. Ethel Ahenakew

1140

1145

The Chair

Ms. Margaret Gruber (Chair of the Outreach Committee, St. John's Anglican Cathedral)

The Chair

Ms. Margaret Gruber

The Chair

Mr. Robert Camplin (Band member of the Saulteaux Band # 159, As Individual)

1150

1155

The Chair

Mr. James R. Favel (As Individual)

1200

The Chair

Mr. James Favel

The Chair

Mr. Bryan Tootoosis (As Individual)

1205

The Chair

Mr. Bryan Tootoosis

The Chair

Mr. Bill Swimmer (As Individual)

1210

The Chair

Mr. Bill Swimmer

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources

NUMBER 039

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Wednesday, February 26, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¾ (0805)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.)): Good morning, everyone.

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

I am pleased to welcome this morning the Battlefords Tribal Council, and I hope the names here on my sheet are the same as what we have before us. I'll go from the schedule.

We have the chief executive officer, Randy Wallace; the policy adviser, Gary LaPlante--he's not here yet--Corrine Bernier Delainey; Alex Kennedy--not here yet; Mayor Wayne Ray, City of North Battleford; and from the regional development partnership, Larry Doke.

And I understand we have a member of the provincial legislature.

Mr. Jack Hillson (As Individual): Yes. Thank you. I'm Jack Hillson, MLA for this area.

The Chair: Welcome all of you.

We have 45 minutes together. We're strict on time. We're starting four minutes late, and we'll end, at a maximum, four minutes late. So I won't interrupt any longer, and I'll ask you to make your presentation.

Mr. Randy Wallace (Chief Executive Officer, Battlefords Tribal Council): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I will keep my comments brief. We've provided a handout for circulation. I think it's a fairly straightforward outline of the policy position of our tribal council.

Our tribal council is 11 years old. It was formed in 1991. We were one of the smaller tribal councils at that point. We had about 25 employees. Today, with our economic development programs, we're approaching 700 people. That's essentially what we're about.

The tribal council is focused on trying to achieve economic self-sufficiency for our first nations in the form of cashflow and a tax base for our first nations and job creation for first nations individuals and families. So we have a very concrete and pragmatic approach to dealing with problems and issues of first nations communities.

If you look at the handout we provided, we'll try to outline the issues as we see them. In Saskatchewan, currently, the federal government spends approximately a billion dollars annually on services and programs for first nations people primarily on reserve. It's a little more difficult to identify and break out the provincial government budget, but they're spending about half a billion dollars.

We have to remember that the first nations population of Saskatchewan is slightly over 100,000 people, and about half of those are on reserve and half are in the urban centres. So when you're looking at the federal portion of the budget, you're looking at a billion dollars, really, for about 50,000 people, which is, in our opinion, a large amount of money. We feel there is certainly enough money in the federal and provincial systems and budgets to solve the problems of first nations, but unfortunately that's not happening.

In terms of on-reserve and off-reserve populations, we're still looking at welfare dependency rates of 85%.

In the urban centres in Saskatchewan we have the highest crime rates in Canada. In North Battleford, where we are right now, you're sitting in the “crime capital of Canada”. Unfortunately, a lot of the crime we're talking about involves young kids, fairly minor types of things, but it is still a very serious problem for the community.

The issue really is, from our point of view, trying to ensure that federal dollars and provincial dollars all get focused at the right time and place on the right issues.

So everything we have done in the past decade-plus has focused on this whole issue of partnership, and our model is a very simple model. What we are doing is this. We are bringing together the four levels of government at one table--federal, provincial, municipal, first nations--plus the private sector. A hand works because it has an opposing thumb. Without the private sector, the hand doesn't work. So the private sector is absolutely fundamental in terms of what we're attempting to do in this region. And we've achieved substantial progress on this. We've been working on this for about five or six years, but we've really accelerated the process in the last year.

We have developed very good working relationships with the oil industry. We are very active in terms of investments in the tourism sector, in terms of hotel ownership, restaurants, that type of thing. We've established a lot of services in the community here. We have the largest first-nations-owned primary health care centre, certainly in western Canada. We have our own doctors and dentists and pharmacy. Only a portion of that is federal money; the rest is agreements with the province. And the rest is the open market private sector.

¾ (0810)

We just recently opened our own first nations high school, because again, we have massive problems with first nations kids not making it through high school. We have difficulty getting reliable stats, but the success rate for Indian kids graduating from high school is single digit, we know that. Whether it's 5%, 6%, or 8%, we're really not sure.

Just looking at the new school we opened, that was a pure partnership with the other two school boards--the Catholic and the public school boards. We sat down with them and we all agreed that individually, we couldn't solve the problem. Together, if everybody brought everything they had to the table, we would stand a chance. Our school opened last September. It's a fairly small school, about 221 kids registered, and at last count we still had about 205.

In the other major public high school, in The Battlefords, they have about 1,000 kids, about 300 from first nations. They typically lose kids in the first three months, and by Christmas they were down to about 50 kids. They had lost 250 first nations kids.

Obviously, if you're going to educate kids you have to keep them in school.

So we're not trying to do anything alone. We're not out promoting sovereignty, jurisdiction, those kinds of things. We're out promoting economic independence. Basically, the model we're working on and are going to present to the federal government within about 60 days is a model that calls for, within 10 years, complete economic independence for our first nations; in other words, no federal transfer payment. We'll develop the business investments and create the cashflow to look after our first nations completely without any federal money, and that's the type of approach we think every tribal council and first nation ought to be promoting.

We can't do it alone. We have to have this partnership approach. We've had great support from the local business community and local government. You'll see in the package here letters of support and a commitment to participate in this partnership approach from about eight provincial cabinet ministers.

Again, we would say there is lots of money, lots of expertise, but it doesn't do us any good if it's just randomly thrown up in the air with the hope that it's going to have some beneficial effect.

The bottom line is, it's not working. We're spending huge amounts of money. And we're not worried about the fact that the federal and provincial governments are wasting money; what we're worrying about is that we are wasting lives. We have far too many kids ending up in court, in jail. Every time that happens you get a young kid 10 or 12 years old developing a criminal record, and they become less and less employable at that point.

So it's essentially a situation where we have to start dealing with things in a much more pragmatic and realistic way. Our first nations want to achieve jurisdiction in various areas of self-government and that type of thing, but you're not going to achieve that until you achieve economic independence. You don't achieve political sovereignty if you're dependent on handouts from another level of government.

The model we have is very doable, very achievable, but we have to have some support from the federal government in particular. Everybody's on board. The thing is we have to make those connections with the key federal departments, Indian Affairs and HRDC. That's what we're working on right now.

I think I would like to just leave it at that, in terms of my comments, and we can talk about this model or anything else you would like to discuss.

But I would like to have some of the other people make a few comments, starting with Mayor Wayne Ray, please.

¾ (0815)

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Wayne Ray (Mayor of North Battleford): Very briefly, I want to thank the Battlefords Tribal Council for inviting the City of North Battleford to participate in this hearing.

The partnership model being proposed is probably one of the first types, I would suspect, within Canada. It does take into consideration the local community as well as how we can work together in order to solve some of the problems we have, and not only just to solve the problems, but also to move the first nations people from basically a consumer role to an active participant within our communities.

The Battlefords area certainly has a high concentration of first nations in our population mass. We see that in the next 20 to 30 years they are going to represent at least 50% of our population. The time has come, and is probably well overdue, that we need to address that situation and encourage them and also bring them into the fold of economic activity of our communities.

This model does that. We have worked on a number of initiatives together already in dealing with justice issues at a provincial level as well as with the Battlefords Tribal Council and the community development corporations to do economic activities.

But when you have a small amount of money in the scheme of things, there's not a whole lot you can do. If the moneys that are already on the table can flow to the local community and the levels of government make local decisions about where that money can be best utilized to serve the needs of our citizens, it makes too much sense. Sometimes we don't see the forest for the trees.

It's time we brought the economic activity of the first nations people, through education and through private enterprises, businesses, within our community. We just see this as a situation and a partnership that enhances our community, and we can work together to solve a lot of the problems.

As we all know, municipal governments within the structure of jurisdiction quite often are limited, and too often we've said it's not in our jurisdiction to deal with some of the issues that challenge us each and every day. That model has to change, because it does take a community to work together in order to be prosperous.

With that, I just want to say thank you again to Randy for inviting us and for us having the ability to make some comments. We see this as an opportunity for a true partnership of working...and economic independence of the first nations people.

We are very supportive as a municipality, and we encourage the commission to take a serious look at the model that's here. I believe it could be a template right across this country in certain circumstances similar to North Battleford.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Wayne Ray: I'm going to ask Larry Doke to make his comments, and then we'll conclude with Jack Hillson and we'll open it up for questions.

Mr. Larry Doke (Regional Development Partnership, Battlefords Tribal Council): Good morning, and thank you for allowing me to make a couple of comments.

As a business person in the community here for the last 25 years, it strikes me as strange when I make applications, or in the paper when we're soliciting employment, that I never get any first nations persons applying. Very strange. In a community where I think at the last statistics we were around 25% to 27% first nations, it's very strange. So there's something gone sideways here.

As Randy said, the new school obviously is working. So we need to look at that.

I find first nations people are very talented. Their skills are exceptional--their hand-eye coordination, those kinds of things--but we're not getting them to apply for jobs. It's just a plain and simple fact. That needs to happen in this area.

It's not that there isn't any work. There's lots of work here. In my business we need mechanics. We need all kinds of those things. At the local college the mechanics course, for instance, has been dropped because of no attendance. We have to get these people back to school. I believe the new school is on the right track.

The other thing is with the funding. We worked on this a long time. We've been involved with several groups in the community, and it's tough when you have the Boys and Girls Club, the United Way--all these groups--working for the same end result but they're running out of cash. There are too many people working on the same thing and nothing is happening. I'm not discrediting anybody here. Everybody works very hard, but unfortunately the end result isn't there.

With this plan I think it can work. I thank you for allowing me to make those comments.

¾ (0820)

The Chair: Mr. Hillson.

Mr. Jack Hillson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

In terms of the legislation before you, I know you have to start somewhere in terms of modernizing an act that I think all Canadians agree we wish wasn't there. You have to start somewhere, and I think to the extent I understand the principles and the thrust of what you're trying to do, I agree with it.

I would submit, as I think the other members have, that I think there's a grave danger that you will be overtaken by events, namely the rural-urban shift. We in North Battleford are on the cutting edge of that shift. We frankly admit we haven't always done a very good job of facilitating this move from on reserve into the community.

We desperately need to make changes, and those changes will have to be made by both groups. What we need, what this legislation needs, is some way of facilitating both an internal strengthening of first nations governance in communities and accommodating the integration that simply is occurring and going to occur. You heard the figure of 50% today. I don't think anyone would quarrel that the figure will be 75% within a generation.

I believe the model that the Battlefords Tribal Council has done and what they are attempting to do in our community is a practical and realistic one. It is one that recognizes the differences and the rights of first nations members, but it also recognizes that the only future of first nations people in our area is working in the larger community. As we together address issues of education, crime, and employment, it is a question of fairness to first nations people but a question of economic survival to those of us who are not.

I would encourage you to read the program outline that has been given you today, and I commend it to you.

Thank you.

The Chair: Does this conclude your presentation?

Mr. Randy Wallace: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a few more remarks. The proposal we put to the provincial government is pretty straightforward. We're not asking them to give us their money, so to speak. We're asking them to bring their money to a permanent table. There will be sub-tables on justice, education, health, etc. We've been received with considerable enthusiasm by the province, because quite frankly if the federal policies for job creation, economic development, education, etc., are not working with first nations on reserve, then the province inherits those problems in the urban centres. That's simply a fact of life. There's no point in sitting back and finger pointing. We're not going to solve the problems that way. We have to get the feds and the province to the table with their resources so that we can really focus those resources effectively.

We have a model that we're very comfortable with. We actually presented this to the previous Minister of Finance, Mr. Paul Martin, about a year and a half ago. At that point we were building up this model. We were indicating that we thought we could cut federal costs in half. Now we think we can totally eliminate them. But it's not only that. The point is we want to reduce welfare dependency and the unemployment stats to the same level as for the general population. So rather than having 85% welfare dependency and unemployment, we need to get down to a more normalized level.

This is not in this particular package, but it was in an earlier package that we developed with the province. Right now the province has about $100 million a year on the table in terms of their social programs, welfare, education, etc. Health still has to be added. So there are lots of resources. That's not the problem. The problem is that it's all scattered. It's not focused. There's no rhyme or reason to it. The only way we're going to achieve that is through a permanent table with the four levels of government and the private sector. That's what we're trying to do.

We do need help trying to get this message to Ottawa. We've been attempting to meet with Minister Nault for the last two years. We just simply cannot seem to make the connection.

Today most of our chiefs are in Saskatoon. There's an FSIN assembly. They are making it clear to the FSIN that they wish to see a different funding relationship between first nations and the federal government. In other words, we're proposing that our first nations negotiate directly with the federal government for whatever funding is currently there and get it back to the local community table. The level of financial support for the FSIN would be significantly reduced, without a doubt. We have to see the money at a point where it can be used effectively. I want to make it clear, though, that our first nations still support and will maintain their membership in the FSIN.

But the central agencies are not working for us. That isn't to say that they're not working for some other tribal councils or first nations. But there ought to be an element of choice here, and that's what's missing. Right now tens of millions of dollars a year go to the FSIN and central agencies, and our first nations simply feel that they're not getting their money's worth.

Thank you.

¾ (0825)

The Chair: Thank you.

I have time to give each party five minutes for questions and answers, and then we'll have four minutes for closing remarks.

I will say that the biggest obstacle in forming a partnership is trust. You've formed a partnership, so I assume that you overcame that obstacle. It says a lot for your community that you're able to have that trust to allow you to form partnerships. That is a difficult thing to do even in my riding.

Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance): Thank you all for being here today.

I need to bring my comments pretty quickly to the matter at hand. Randy, did you have any consultations specifically with respect to Bill C-7?

Mr. Randy Wallace: Yes, we've had consultations. We agree with the basic intent of the bill in terms of trying to improve the level of management expertise and accountability, that type of thing.

However, if there are no changes other than the implementation of this bill, I don't think it's going to be effective, because there's really no incentive for first nations at this point in time to take on all of the additional work that's involved in the corporate management process. Right now they are at a subsistence level. We're going to have to create some incentives and some opportunities and rewards, if you like, for good management.

Our model for implementing this is the centralization and professionalization of management, social assistance, education, etc. That's the direction in which our chiefs have decided to move. So we'll have individual corporations managing the social assistance budget for the bands, because they have trouble with that, and managing the schools, both urban and at the reserve level. This bill will fit into that. But again there needs to be some incentive for these first nations to develop that.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Of course you realize you are a little offside with other bodies in the country, the AFN and the FSIN, on that. There are others that are willing to acknowledge maybe there are some good aspects here and some things that need to be adjusted too.

Specifically on things like leadership selection, are the bands represented by the Battlefords Tribal Council willing to write code for that or have they already? On financial management and accountability in the administration of government, is there not a lot of protest so that proper code can be written so we can modernize government in respect of those things?

Mr. Randy Wallace: That's correct. Quite frankly, we have been doing that for a number of years because it's good business, not because Indian Affairs wants it. If our first nations are going to be able to deal with the banks and the financial institutions, they need to have their affairs together at home.

We have tens of millions of dollars of investment in this community, and practically none of it is federal money. It's from banks and credit unions.

¾ (0830)

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: We've heard in different parts of the country about some different scenarios. Do you have a way of assuring how this gets out in the communities for health, education, and upgrading or improving the level of life there? For example, when we were in Alberta, people there were pretty hot against tribal councils. It kind of took me by surprise. They thought they were the creation of INAC and the department, and the services weren't being provided.

You commented that sometimes, for the dollars that flow to the FSIN or other national bodies, the services aren't always provided for all the dollars given. Do you have a way of countering that kind of thing if members of first nations come to us or to people here and say they're not seeing any difference yet? Is it flowing on reserve to make a difference in upgrading and improving the style of life yet, or will that be in the future?

Mr. Randy Wallace: From our point of view, it certainly is. As I've indicated, the most fundamental thing we want to achieve as tribal council is for everybody to have a job. We want everybody to have the ability to earn an income and provide for their families. The on-reserve welfare rate for adults is $195 a month. People need to have jobs.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Is that changing yet, or is it a longer-term plan and maybe you'll see some of the results of that ten years down the road? Are you beginning to see a difference in employment rates?

Mr. Randy Wallace: Yes. We've already achieved the employment of close to 700 people. Our target is 2,000. We know when we've created 2,000 jobs we will have reduced the unemployment rate down to around 15% to 16%. That's still too high, but it will be a major achievement in a decade. That's the fundamental thing we have to do.

[Translation]

Le président: Mr. Loubier, you have five minutes.

Mr. Yvan Loubier : Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to make a comment and then ask a question.

I wish first of all to state that I was very impressed by your presentation. Very few communities, at least to my knowledge, be it in Quebec or in Canada, show as much dynamism and as much willingness for joint action. That, to my mind, is an approach that leads directly to progress and success, and I wish to congratulate you. I am really thrilled by what I have read and what I have heard you say here this morning.

I would now like to ask a question with regard to the briefs you have tabled with us. You talk about poor resource allocation and about the fact that regionally and nationally there is bad management. I would like you to give me a few examples of poor resource allocation such that it prevents your community from progressing as it should. In the context of joint action, poor resource allocation could impede all of the measures you undertake. It is therefore important at the outset to target the resources properly in order for you to be able, thanks to your dynamism, to move forward and to help your community move forward.

[English]

Mr. Randy Wallace: Essentially, I guess we would sum it up by saying you really can't develop effective policy and implement policy by remote control. It's virtually impossible, we believe, for Ottawa to design programs that fit all the nuances and differences you find throughout the country and the differences you find in terms of the relationship of first nations people to the larger society at the community level.

So again, the simplest solution, from our point of view, and what we're asking Indian Affairs and HRD to do, is for the federal government to take this $1 billion that gets allocated annually just for Saskatchewan and block that out on a regional basis. Again, we're not asking them to give us the money, but come to the table. Just come to the table with your money, and we'll talk to the provincial departments and local government and the private sector. We'll identify what the problems are and what the opportunities are at the community level and work together to get the best use out of the money.

I could talk for days about the myths, missing the target, so to speak. I've worked for the provincial government in Saskatchewan for nearly a decade, and I know civil servants try very hard to develop programs, but there are natural resistances for the federal government to work with the province and the province to work with the municipalities, and things like that. We're trying to overcome all those resistances, and we're just asking people to come to the table with their resources. Over time we'll gradually redirect those and retarget those resources so that we achieve objectives that we've all agreed upon.

¾ (0835)

The Chair: Mr. Martin, five minutes.

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all of you.

Like other MPs here, I'm heartened by the level of cooperation that I sense, with your mayor, a leading businessperson, and your MLA all here are dealing with this issue.

I represent downtown Winnipeg, which has similar rural-urban shifts. Over 15,000 people in my riding self-identify as aboriginal. I think there are actually many more.

Really, your brief has very little to do with the bill we're dealing with. So as much as I'm heartened and very interested in your economic development proposals here, what we've been hearing across the country is that first nations people don't really want this bill that is tinkering with the Indian Act. What they want to talk about is the treaty relationship, or to empower the treaty negotiations that are currently under way, which would lead towards true sovereignty. Good governance without true sovereignty is about as likely to succeed as sovereignty would without good governance.

So we're dealing with Bill C-7, and I guess the one thing I'd like you to comment on is one aspect of Bill C-7, expanding the obligation to disclose financial information. The bands currently have to show their audits to their own band members. Under Bill C-7, any individual in Canada could come up and demand to see the full financial information of any financial enterprise you would get into.

So I would ask you, wouldn't you see that as a hindrance with some private sector enterprise, that your competition could come and demand to see your books? Could you comment on that aspect of Bill C-7?

Mr. Randy Wallace: That's a very good point. Of course, we have our lawyers looking at those kinds of issues, because you're quite correct that there are situations where, in business ventures, it's absolutely essential that you maintain confidentiality. It's a competitive world out there, and your competitors may have certain information and at certain times are going to take advantage of that. So we would have to have some protection, as limited companies, crown corporations, and so on, have. There would have to be some rules with respect to the business operations.

When it comes to the issue of public funds, from whatever level of government, including first nations, we certainly have no problem with the whole issue of open, public accountability. The model we're putting forward, I believe, does relate to the whole issue of good governance and accountability.

Accountability for us means explaining where you spent the money, but proving that you got some results. We've seen many, many organizations that can account for the money in terms of showing what they spent it on, but they accomplish nothing. For us, that's not accountability; that's a waste of time.

¾ (0840)

Mr. Pat Martin: Okay.

Dealing strictly with money matters too, one of the grievances we've heard is with the implementation of these changes. These are going to very dramatically change the way officers are elected, the way governance is undertaken. It's going to cost a lot of money. You have 633 first nations communities that these rules will be imposed on, a huge cost, hundreds of millions of dollars spent to impose changes and rules that a lot of communities don't want.

When you're commenting on misallocation of all these public funds, wouldn't you see that as a waste of money?

Mr. Randy Wallace: With a number of the proposals, for example, that would make first nations legal entities, we see advantages in that regard in the business world. It's very difficult to do business when you don't exist as a legal entity. That's very confusing for banks, for example. How do they establish security provisions and that type of thing?

Mr. Pat Martin: That legal status should be up to the first nations, maybe, to establish what type of legal entity they want it to be. Municipalization isn't necessarily the--

Mr. Randy Wallace: That's a good point, and that's one of the issues, of course, that we do need to look at and discuss. I think our first nations are certainly in favour of being a legal entity if that legal entity is a government, not a corporation but a government.

We believe the Supreme Court has clearly indicated that they consider first nations to be governments, though they tend to refer to them as analogous to municipalities, and so on.

But having a governmental legal status is very, very critical to our first nations. Anything less than that is going to be a big problem.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Hubbard.

Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): Thanks, Mr. Chair, and to our witnesses, thank you for your presentations.

I will share my time with my colleague.

I'm challenged here with social values. This is not part of our study, but it's something we can look at later. We seem to have social values that are being measured here today a little bit in terms of how first nations people who come to the cities and towns are looked upon.

Your challenge is tremendous, because as normal European white people, we seem to think time is important. We think wealth is important. We think all those materialistic things that are so important to us should also be part of somebody else's culture. With that, I'm not saying what is right or what is wrong, but that's really the great clash we're dealing with here.

At 8 o'clock this morning we started, but that's our value. To a lot of first nations people, time doesn't start with something on a clock. Success and the values of having a good relationship and a good livelihood are not connected with having a new Mercedes-Benz down the road that someone is going to be able to drive around town.

I've spent a lot of time in schools and have dealt with probably 10% of our school population being from native communities, and we did have fairly good success. Some of those people who have graduated from our classes are today chiefs and leaders in communities.

All I can say, Mr. Chair, before I turn it over to Stan, is that it's a challenging aspect, and I'm not sure if the cultural bridge can be gained as quickly as some people would like to see it happen.

Why do we work 50 weeks a year and have two weeks of vacation? That's something that has been brought to us as the way society should operate. But there's this tremendous clash of values, and until we get some bridging, I think it's very difficult to impose our values of what's right, what's wrong, what's good for us, what success is, and to have other people accept what we see as important.

Stan, you probably have something more relevant than my bit of philosophy.

The Chair: And you have two and a half minutes to do it in.

Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.): Thank you very much. I apologize for being late. I got up at five to eight, believe it or not. I don't even know if I have my pants on right, but I am here.

I can appreciate what you people are going through. I really admire the effort. Collectively, so many people are trying to solve a very serious, major problem, and it's going to take a great number of years to show very positive signs of success.

I'm a former educator. I fought like hell for the first native teacher education program in Ontario. We were very successful in the 1960s in bringing it about. I have been involved with native communities for all these years. I was very happy when we opened up our first first nations high school in Thunder Bay. I no longer bring visitors to that high school, because it's an embarrassment. It's a high school for 600 to 700 students, and I can go there and find 15 or 20 students.

You know, the kind of problem that Larry and others are talking about is very common in Thunder Bay. But in your model, I don't see any representation from the labour sector, the unions. Where are they? This is a unionized community you are dealing with, right? Where are the parents? You know, a grandmother in one reserve 400 or 500 miles away from the school in Thunder Bay passes away. It's time for healing, and 60, 70, or 80 young people leave the school and go back to the reserve. They don't even know that woman; they just go back. And they're gone, because the reserves can't afford to keep sending them back and forth. The money is wasted, gone. So $1 billion will never be enough--never.

You have to get the parents involved. Attitudinal and value changes are absolutely essential. I'm talking about parents on both sides. I'm talking about the value system in your society and the value system in the first nations society working together.

I wish you all the success in the world. I don't know how you are going to achieve it, but I'm telling you we are going to be watching you very closely, because every little degree of success you have in this community will be mirrored in other communities across this country.

¾ (0845)

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Dromisky.

There is no time for a response, but there are four minutes for closing remarks, and you may use them as you wish.

Mr. Randy Wallace: Okay. Thank you very much.

I'll just make a few remarks, and then I think Jack has a few things he'd like to say.

I certainly appreciate the opportunity to make a presentation to this group today. We have accomplished a lot of things with our particular approach. Our partnership model is not just a piece of paper. If you have the time, we could take you around the community and show you all of these health centres, schools, and businesses we have created through this model. We believe this is the only way. We are past the point of being able to afford federal education systems, provincial education systems, first nations education. No. We just can't afford it and it doesn't work. That's the bottom line.

I agree there are cultural differences amongst groups and people. We know that. We have the most culturally diverse tribal council in Saskatchewan, without a doubt, and it's been very successful. We've overcome the racial tensions and distinctions internally and externally, and we have to do that. First nations people need decent incomes. They need the same opportunities in terms of housing and recreation as anybody else.

We're not attempting to provide the panacea for everything. We firmly believe in the separation of church and state, so to speak. What we're trying to do is provide a basic, decent level of material life for people in terms of their needs.

Mr. Jack Hillson: Thank you. I'd like to respond to Mr. Hubbard for just a moment, if I may.

As a non-aboriginal politician who absolutely rejects assimilation and is strongly in favour of preservation of the language, the culture, and the values, I say it is nonetheless crucial to always bear in mind that if, for example, the education system does not prepare young people for the economy of the 21st century, that education system has robbed those young people. That is the first point--we live where we live and we live when we live, and that can't be altered. If you want to call it a clash, so be it. But first and foremost, all education systems have to prepare the young people for the societies in which they live.

I would like to say that what I see and experience in my dealings with first nations people in this area is that below the political leadership are a lot of people who, as Randy has said, simply want nothing more than a better life for themselves and their children. They are already past the jurisdictional arguments, which I think are the substance of what this committee is dealing with. I realize jurisdictional issues are always important, and yes, you do have to struggle with them, but many of the people who are actually walking the walk are already past those jurisdictional questions. They simply want a better life for themselves and, more important, for their children.

¾ (0850)

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

I now invite to the table, from the Big Island Lake Cree Nation, Chief Ernest Sundown. Accompanying Chief Sundown are consultants Eric Tootoosis, Lester White Thunder, and Sol Sanderson.

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

Chief Ernest Sundown (Big Island Lake Cree Nation): Good morning, everybody.

Witness speaks in his native language

I just want to welcome the people from Ottawa to our territory. I'll be asking Eric to read from the notes, and Sol Sanderson will answer all the questions after or highlight some of the major things we've accomplished. Lester will make a statement from the mountains, as a signatory Indian.

So with that, I'll ask Eric to proceed.

Mr. Eric Tootoosis (Consultant, Big Island Lake Cree Nation): Thank you, Chief.

Good morning, standing committee.

Our purpose here today is to solicit your support in the implementation of two recommendations. The first recommendation is that this committee advise Parliament to reject Bill C-7, based on the concerns raised by the citizens and the government of Big Island Lake Cree Nation. The second recommendation is that this committee recommend to Parliament the creation of complementary legislation supporting bilateral relations between Big Island Lake Cree Nation and the Crown, based on the understanding, the spirit, and intent of Treaty 6 and the inherent rights of the people of Big Island Lake as the indigenous peoples of this land.

As the indigenous peoples of this land, the citizens of Big Island Lake and their government possess rights that no other peoples of this land can claim. It was these inherent rights that led to the ancestors of the contemporary citizens of Big Island Lake to enter into a treaty with the Crown, a treaty that was and is intended to be to the mutual benefit of our two cultures and civilizations. It's a relationship that must be promoted in the interest of fostering a balance between our cultures so that we may relate to each other with respect and pride. It is fair to say that at this time we do not enjoy a treaty relationship or a cultural relationship that is balanced and of mutual benefit to either Canada or the Big Island Lake Cree Nation.

The people of Big Island Lake Cree Nation, individually and collectively, deny the Crown's claim to a power over the internal and external affairs of Big Island Lake Cree Nation. Upon signing Treaty 6 on June 25, 1913, our leaders did not sign away our inherent rights as indigenous peoples of this land, nor did we sign away our sovereignty and jurisdiction and the ability to govern ourselves. We entered into an arrangement with Canada that was and is intended to honour and respect the domain of each party to the agreement.

History, however, revealed that the Crown's actions reflected an assumption of superiority, of actions that resulted in our history being plundered culturally, socially, economically, and politically. The political economic power of the Crown created an imbalanced relationship that we cannot and will not tolerate any longer.

Following June 25, 1913, the Crown established a regime characterized by the unilateral imposition of a federal legislative and administrative framework of controls: the Crown's unilateral decision to define who an Indian was and what their political, economic, civil, and social rights were; the deliberate erosion of the status and the prestige of the Big Island Lake people; the creation of a reserve from which we were denied freedom of movement; and the perpetuation of these unbalanced relationships for 90 years.

These are the realities of this unbalanced, distorted relationship that promotes inequality and perpetuates domination by the Crown.

Today we are forced into another confrontation with the Crown. The existing situation and its realities, as exhibited by the federal legislation's regulatory administrative regimes, continue to assert the dominance of Canada over the Big Island Lake Cree Nation.

The Indian Act and Bill C-7, Bill C-49, and Bill C-19...to create a first nations tax commission, a first nations management board, a first nations finance authority, a first nations statistical institute to make consequential amendments to other acts. They combine to determine, if not destroy, the inherent right of Big Island Lake people to govern both their internal and external affairs. These technocratic and bureaucratic crown initiatives are rapidly becoming another dark shadow on relations between our people.

On September 17, 2002, officials of the Department of Indian Affairs stated publicly that there would be no major changes in the 2003-04 comprehensive funding agreements until the First Nations Governance Act is ratified by Parliament and that Bill C-7 will include predetermined directives specifically to principles of accountability, transparency, redress, and disclosure.

¾ (0855)

These facts point to the overconfidence and presumptive behaviour of the bureaucrats to the utility of this House of Commons committee, given that Bill C-7 has just been introduced at the first reading and your committee is asking for our input. These facts also point to the arrogance of the bureaucracy in its relation to our people.

Somewhere along the line the bureaucrats and the technocrats have become more separated from reality. They have become isolated in a land constructed by humans of human ideas where reality and illusion are intermingled.

Consequently, the bureaucracy, unable to cope with the reason and ideas of the indigenous peoples, falls back on mediocracy and promotes more restrictive controls to the people of Big Island Lake. This is a short-sighted logic that will not satisfy anyone. The logic behind Bill C-7 should be questioned, for this approach to relations with Big Island Lake people clearly comes from the dark side of reason and should be destroyed.

We ask the members of this committee to note the wording of Bill C-7--and Bill C-19, for that matter--which indicates that these laws will be used to legitimize making related amendments to the acts. Also by way of example, proposed subsection 43(4) of the First Nations Governance Act states that the amendments will be made to the existing Indian Act, subsection 2(3), declaring that “the powers of the council of a band may only be exercised in conformity with the First Nations Governance Act”.

Even more troubling is clause 56 of the First Nations Governance Act, which amends section 88 of the Indian Act to read:

Subject to the terms of any treaty and any other Act of Parliament, all laws of general application from time to time in force in any province are applicable to and in respect of Indians in the province, except to the extent that those laws are inconsistent with this Act or the First Nations Governance Act, any order, rule, regulation or by-law made under this Act, or any regulation or band law made under the First Nations Governance Act, and except to the extent that those laws make provision for any matter for which provision is made by or under this Act or the First Nations Governance Act.

Clearly, the Crown is intent on exercising greater control over Big Island Lake to conform to the laws of Canada, whether they are federal or provincial.

In the preamble to Bill C-7, paragraphs six and seven state:

Whereas the Government of Canada has adopted a policy recognizing the inherent right of self-government as an aboriginal right and providing for the negotiation of self-government;

Whereas neither the Indian Act nor this Act is intended to define the nature and scope of any right to self-government or to prejudge the outcome of any self-government negotiation;

When these statements are compared to sections of Bill C-7, the Crown, for some reason, has a great problem defining inherent rights, defining self-government, or even explaining the concept of “prejudgment”.

Taken at face value, the above quotes would appear to be high-minded, worthy principles to apply to the trust relations between the Crown and the Big Island Lake Cree Nation. However, when taken within the entire context of Bill C-7, there is an obvious dichotomy between what the act says it will strive to do and in fact what will be implemented by the authorities cited in the act.

Most of the critical obstacles to change occur not when good ideas are generated, but when people try to implement new ideas. The biggest obstacle is often political competition within the powerful group, which stalls and prevents any key institutional reform.

¿ (0900)

We believe the Crown's ideas for change may have been worthy, but the iron bands of control have been applied to the implementation of the idea, resulting in a flawed product. Attempting to meet the objectives and views of pressure groups within and outside of Parliament hampers the Crown's ability to create a relationship based on the spirit and intent of Treaty 6.

The result, as illustrated by Bill C-7 and other legislation, is a Crown biased towards an incremental series of controls that are a human construction that promotes the illusion of a positive change. The reality, however, is that the changes implemented failed in their intent to achieve a positive and complementary relationship between Canada and Big Island Lake Cree Nation.

In a final analysis of Bill C-7, it must be discredited because it fails to offer reasonable methods for coping with the problems Big Island Lake is experiencing. The policies underlying Bill C-7 are a response to values within the policy-making arena of the Crown, not to the basic problems facing Big Island Lake Cree Nation.

We, the people of Big Island Lake, are exercising our inherent rights and taking necessary steps to control our part of the Treaty 6 bargain we entered into in 1913. To this end we have ratified nine laws with accompanying regulations, codes, and procedures, and we are in the process of developing more legislation aimed at asserting our authority and jurisdiction over our internal and external affairs of the Big Island Lake Cree Nation.

The laws that have been ratified are listed here: the Convention Act, the Financial Management Act, the Citizenship Act the Economic Development Act, the Personnel Management Act, the Education Act, the Elections Act, the Wildlife Management and Environmental Protection Act, and the Cree Language Act. Other legislation is at various stages of development and includes but is not necessarily limited to the areas of health, lands, traditional territory, child and family services, sports and recreation, social development, justice, housing, tourism, and forestry.

Throughout the development and review of the ratification stages of our law-making we have followed our traditional customs at all stages of decision-making. We started this process in 1985 and we determined that in order to ensure full understanding and participation by all of our citizens, the proposed laws would be presented in English and in the Cree languages, and that audio tapes in Cree would be distributed throughout the community.

The community-oriented process is based on reaching consensus within the community before the laws are implemented. A simple majority of 51% is not good enough. Full consensus must be achieved before we move forward. These same principles have been applied to the creation of the codes, regulations, and procedures that are necessary to the successful implementation of our laws.

Complementing these initiatives by the citizens and the government of Big Island Lake is the current implementation of a master plan to address our goals and objectives for the next 20 years. The master plan will be implemented by a 10-year strategic plan and managed by a 5-year operating plan. The control over this process is exercised by the citizens of Big Island Lake through a community-based consultation decision-making framework.

Final decisions are only acted upon by the government of Big Island Lake when the citizens of the community have given their approval. These are the steps of autonomy that the citizens and the government of Big Island Lake Cree Nation have adopted and implemented as both necessary and required for sustainable social, political, and economic development and operation of the community.

It should be pointed that all of the finances required for these developments have been fully subsidized by the internal resources of Big Island Lake Cree Nation.

¿ (0905)

These plans, principles, and laws will be reflected in the future agreements with Canada. For example, Canada will see fiscal arrangements that give equal weight to the laws of both Canada and the Big Island Lake Cree Nation. This action will influence both the policy program environments that impact on relations between the Big Island Lake Cree Nation and Canada.

The manifestation of this joint recognition of each party domain will result in a relationship that features a mutual benefit to each party of Treaty 6. The preamble to the Big Island Lake Cree Nation Convention Act clearly illustrates the values and beliefs of the Big Island Lake people and the nature of their relationship to others.

Placed here by the Creator, we, the indigenous peoples of Big Island Lake Cree Nation, living in our territory with other beings, the earth, the water, sun, plants, and animals in a peaceful coexistence provided by the Creator, believe harmony and balance between all beings was required in the past and is required and necessary now and in the future. This extends to other peoples and cultures as beliefs and respect for those other cultures. It is reflected in our individual and collective rights and responsibilities as indigenous peoples who coexist with other original beings and rank neither above nor below these other beings.

We are responsible for conducting ourselves individually and collectively in a manner that promotes and enhances harmony and balance among all original beings; as a means of ensuring the coexistence of balance and harmony among original beings, as the Creator intended. It is understood and enjoyed by the people of Big Island Lake Cree Nation. We have organized our intentions and beliefs in the form of the principles and codes that will guide our people both in the present and in the future. All of this is based on the natural laws provided by the Creator.

These values and spiritual beliefs will guide our relations with Canada and at all times will be incorporated into our policies, programs, and fiscal arrangements with Canada. We have given you copies of nine laws we have in place, as well as several other codes regarding community-based accountability, conflict of interest guidelines, transparency, and ethical conduct. We also have a draft of a fiscal agreement that will be the basis for negotiations with the Crown.

At the outset we declare our intent to establish a relationship with Canada based on respect and recognition of the domains of these parties of Treaty 6 as we described. We have several autonomous steps in the formalization of our jurisdiction and authority and in our planning for the future independence and well-being of our people individually and collectively.

We ask that Canada support our objectives in altering its policy, program values, beliefs, and goals with the intention of creating a relationship that is of mutual benefit to both our peoples. This promotion and implementation of a balanced relationship between our peoples will result in mutual benefit for the Big Island Lake Cree Nation and Canada.

In closing, we want to invite you to both support our intentions and join in the creation of a new set of relations that will be a credit and a benefit to both our parties.

Chief Ernest Sundown, Big Island Lake.

¿ (0910)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Just for the record, we asked everyone to prepare five-minute presentations. Others have taken 30 minutes for their presentations, but it takes away from the opportunity of members to ask questions. But we are here to listen to you, so we allowed the time.

I will start a progressive round. You may ask one five-minute question, Mr. Vellacott, and we'll move on as the witnesses allow us time.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I thank you, gentlemen, for being here today.

Chief Sundown, have you had the opportunity to have some consultations specifically on Bill C-7, the First Nations Governance Act? Were you able to get some input directly from your band members, your ordinary grassroots members, by meeting with them?

Chief Ernest Sundown: As leaders in our community we are responsible for everything on the reserve, including anything that comes from Ottawa. Our stand has always been to question what comes from Ottawa. We still believe there are policies that are meant to destroy our communities and our people, so we always question anything that comes from Ottawa, including this latest one.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I hear you. I'll restate my question. How many members are there in your band?

Chief Ernest Sundown: There are 700.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Did you have a chance to meet with those band members, show them Bill C-7, tell them your concerns, and consult with them?

Chief Ernest Sundown: Yes, we brought it up. Everybody now has modern communications. They have access to the Internet or whatever.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: But as a band you never made a point of calling meetings specifically to look at and discuss Bill C-7.

¿ (0915)

Chief Ernest Sundown: Yes, we had meetings.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: You had a series of meetings.

Chief Ernest Sundown: Yes.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Okay. My other question is on these stricter codes. It looks like you have some pretty thorough stuff here in the manuals. There's a lot of detail. They seem to cover issues like leadership selection, financial management and accountability, and administration of government, which are the three major parts of the bill here.

As chief and council, would you be able to simply use these codes and insert them into Bill C-7? Even though there's suspicion about something coming from Ottawa, could you use them to say, here is what fits, and maybe tweak it a bit if necessary? Is that something you could do as chief and council, and cover it off that way?

Chief Ernest Sundown: No. I guess you're indirectly asking us to accept your policy, and we're against your policy, I guess.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: It's an open-ended policy, if I understand the bill. You can write your own codes, your own laws. If people don't have the kind of thing you've very thoroughly laid out here, there is the requirement to write codes within a period of time. But you seem to have done a lot of thorough work here.

I guess I'm asking whether this would fit. You seem to have the bases pretty much covered off here.

Chief Ernest Sundown: Maybe Sol or Eric can answer.

Mr. Eric Tootoosis: The relationship that the treaty affirmed is nation to nation, government to government. Whatever the federal government passes, it is bilateral to Big Island Lake Cree Nation--complementary but bilateral, recognizing one another.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: So this doesn't fit then. I'm not understanding. Would this not apply? You've already kind of covered it off here, it appears to me.

Chief Ernest Sundown: Bill C-7 doesn't fit for Big Island Lake.

Mr. Sol Sanderson (Consultant, Big Island Lake Cree Nation): Just to qualify that, the Big Island Lake inherent rights implementation strategy is based on their Cree traditions, customs, and practices that are recognized by that larger framework I presented yesterday in Prince Albert. That's why it's important you understand that framework. They've occupied the field with their laws and policies, as they identified here. They intend to move ahead with that jurisdiction based on their laws, traditions, customs, and practices. It's similar to the English common-law system, which is the English law in Canada, except in Quebec with the French Civil Code, which is French law--no different.

That principle is applied. That principle is recognized by the larger framework already and is confirmed by treaty. So Bill C-7 has no relevance to the volume of laws that Big Island Lake Cree Nation have developed. They've filed these with the Privy Council federally and with the Governor General's office federally.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Loubier.

[Translation]

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

Good morning. I am very happy that you came. I found your presentation quite refreshing. We sometimes forget, around this table and throughout the federal government, that in Canada treaties were negotiated between the Crown and the various Aboriginal nations. We also forget that these were treaties between equals. These were treaties between the State and one or several nations. I find refreshing the fact that you have reminded us of this and that you state that the future rests on mutual respect between nations through a negotiation process led face to face, looking into each other's eyes, and not through bills that impose things upon you.

I was listening to my colleagues earlier. Your First Nation may well satisfy the requirements of the bill, but the truth of the matter is that you should not have to satisfy them. We should not be maintaining the spirit that has prevailed for the last 130 years with the Indian Act. We must set a new stage.

For my part, I consider that you are a nation and I am very sensitive to this issue. In Quebec in particular, people are very sensitive to this matter. Last week, I was telling Ted Moses, who is the Chief of the James Bay Cree People and whom you probably know, that the relationship that exists in Quebec is completely different. There are things that we do badly, but there are also things that we do well, and when we do things well, I believe we should talk about them.

How might we for example compare the Paix des braves Agreement signed not long ago between the Government of Quebec and the James Bay Cree, with this bill?

I rather have the impression that the bill will perpetuate the Indian Act, the infantilization type treatment that is such that we are still dictating to you what you should do and telling you what you are not doing right, the same as 130 years ago when the Indian Act was adopted. In short, how might we compare this approach with this Act, and would it be preferable to adopt an approach similar to what was done with the Paix des braves for all First Nations in Canada?

¿ (0920)

[English]

The Chair: I think Mr. Sanderson is being designated to respond.

Mr. Sol Sanderson: The James Bay Cree-Naskapi Act is a different form of legislation that requires the Province of Quebec to ratify. Without the broader scope of legislation that's there, the multi-billion-dollar forestry agreement would not have been achieved between the James Bay Cree and the Province of Quebec respecting that specific resource. The James Bay Cree-Naskapi Act does recognize what we now call under the Indian Act off-reserve jurisdiction for the James Bay Cree within their territory. That's respected and recognized.

The one element missing, though, in the James Bay Cree-Naskapi Act is the failure to recognize the James Bay Cree jurisdiction again. There are some models there on implementation strategies respecting the economic arrangements and other arrangements that are required here. So there is a major difference between this bill and the James Bay Cree-Naskapi Act.

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

I now invite to the table, from the Lucky Man Cree Nation, Chief Rod King. We will have 30 minutes with Chief King. We invite you to make your presentation, and hopefully we'll allow some time for questions.

If there is time for questions, we will start with Mr. Martin at five minutes.

Chief Rod King (Lucky Man Cree Nation): Good morning.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity extended to the Lucky Man Cree Nation to appear before the committee to make this presentation.

Before I do that, Mr. Chairman, let me welcome you to this part of Saskatchewan, traditional territory for the Plains Cree Indians. Before we were molested by the Europeans, we lived in this area, exercising our jurisdiction and our sovereignty within these lands.

I would also like to say that just across the river in Battleford is Government House. I hope you will make every effort to visit it. Government House sits just across the Battle River. It used to be the capital of the Northwest Territories. I hope your committee gets a chance to see that. On this side of the river used to be Old Fort Battleford, where nine members of our first nations were hung for some crimes they didn't commit.

Today we hear about germ warfare. Well, we're not immune to that. The Europeans practised that on our people when they transferred the smallpox germ to the blankets the Hudson's Bay people gave out. If you look at the news, it seems that things are coming around. What comes around finally does come back to haunt not only our people but maybe your people too, depending on what happens in the Middle East. I hope it doesn't. It devastated our people. Millions of our people died as a result of the smallpox epidemic.

I just use those remarks to kind of welcome you to my presentation.

I wish to say as an opening remark that I sincerely hope the committee will take seriously the concerns and recommendations raised not only by my first nation, but also by others appearing before you.

Not more than a month ago I made a written submission to the standing committee on Bill C-6, the Specific Claims Resolution Act. Unfortunately, I subsequently realized that the whole exercise was a mere charade and not meaningful consultation at all. It was a foregone conclusion. Despite over 32 amendments recommended and supported by the first nations, not one was supported by the committee, primarily by Liberal members who formed the majority on the committee. This was not only profoundly disappointing, but revealing of how the system operates to frustrate the legitimate wishes of the people the legislation most affects when a decision is made by the government to unilaterally impose its will.

I again appear before this committee and trust that this is not another charade. Despite our concerns about the legitimacy of this process, the Lucky Man Cree Nation feels that nevertheless it is imperative to make our voice heard on this and other proposed federal legislation that will have a significant impact on our communities.

I would like to address some of the concerns our first nation has with the governance legislation and identify some of the reasons there is opposition to this bill as currently drafted. I'd also like to make some recommendations, should this legislation pass despite opposition.

First and foremost, although the federal government talks about the constitutionally recognized inherent right of self-government and the paternalistic nature and archaic provisions of the Indian Act, which deny first nations the ability to exercise these inherent rights, it then proposes legislation that does precisely that.

¿ (0925)

It imposes self-government codes that are self-determined by the federal government, even in situations where codes were designed by the first nations. Moreover, if first nations choose not to develop their own codes, the government will impose them by federal regulation. This is paternalism of the worst kind. It is a step backward from what is even provided under the Indian Act because it imposes Canada's concept of good and responsible government, regardless of the wishes and aspirations of the first nations.

Secondly, when Chief Lucky Man entered into treaty, he entered into a solemn arrangement as an equal partner. As a first nation with the inherent right to govern ourselves, we do not feel the federal government has a legitimate legislative role in directing, defining, or reshaping the internal affairs of our government.

The unilateral imposition of this legislation, which will reshape the customary ways in which we govern ourselves, we see as a profound violation of the spirit of equal partnership with which our forefathers entered into treaty.

The process of imposing legislation on the internal affairs of our first nation without our consent is fundamentally flawed, since the treaty-based government-to-government relationship cannot be reconciled by legislative imposition nor the unilateral exercise of authority of one government over the other.

Third, one of the gravest concerns about this bill is that if a first nation chooses not to pass a leadership, administrative, or financial management code, one will be imposed on them by federal regulation.

What do the regulations provide with respect to the codes that will be imposed? Bill C-7 is silent as to the content of these regulations. No sample regulation is provided. In other words, Canada proposes to unilaterally impose on first nations a system of government that is not contained in the bill. It is unknown to the first nations and is not transparent for the purpose of assessing the impact of its non-compliance.

This is unacceptable on its face and in principle. At least first nations know what to expect if the bill is imposed when they choose to comply with its terms. On the other hand, first nations do not know what will be imposed or what the consequences will be if they choose not to comply.

How can one honestly say there has been meaningful consultation if there is no disclosure? Canada has an obligation as our fiduciary, before Bill C-7 is passed, to fully disclose what they propose to impose on us if we choose not to implement one or more of these codes.

Fourth, and finally, Bill C-7 is promoted publicly and among first nations as a means to address issues of good governance, transparency, and financial accountability. These are laudable and worthy goals that we all, including first nations, support. However, under this bill, the process by which these objectives are achieved is flawed for some of the reasons already mentioned.

Furthermore, they are based on an apparent racial stereotyping of first nations, which assumes that they neither have achieved nor are capable of achieving good governance, transparency, and financial accountability without federal imposition of the means by which these objectives can be achieved.

What better evidence of paternalism or neo-colonialism is there than this? Bill C-7 is not progressive but regressive legislation in support of Canada's concept of what is best for us.

¿ (0930)

In our case, Lucky Man is proud of its record of good government, transparency, and financial accountability. And I might intervene here, Mr. Chairman, by saying that for the last 25 years we've had good audits. We've never had a bad audit in the 25 years we've been in existence.

We don't need Big Brother telling us how to manage our own affairs. We have been doing this successfully without codes for decades, if not generations. We resent Canada trying to fit us within their concept of what is responsible government. I don't need to tell you about the charades that have happened with the gun bill. How much money has been spent by the government? Is that good money management? I don't know.

And I don't have to tell this committee about the Human Resources story of about two or three years ago and how many billions of dollars were spent on those things. I don't need to remind you of those things. Is that good government? I don't know.

Having said all this, however, we are pragmatic and suspect that something will be forced on us no matter what our objection. If such is the case, it behooves me as the chief of Lucky Man, on behalf of my members, to try to make the best of a bad situation. At the minimum the following are my suggestions for change to this bill.

Number one, Bill C-7, either in its body or in the preamble, should provide for the negotiation of self-government agreements as the preferred alternative to imposing codes or regulations.

Number two, the bill should provide that the proposed leadership selection, band administration, and financial management codes are interim or transitional before negotiated self-government agreements are finalized.

Three, the bill should state expressly what it does not endorse, a legislative process that precludes the exercise of traditional, inherent, or customary governance rights.

Four, with respect to provisions dealing with band administration, if a first nation chooses not to adopt these provisions, they should be given the option of formulating their own laws, consistent with the objectives of transparency and accountability, without having a code imposed on them.

Number five, it must be made clear that if the Crown chooses to exercise any discretionary powers to interfere in the financial affairs of a first nation, such infringement must be justified and pay deference to the right of a first nation to govern its own financial affairs.

Six, finally, the language of Bill C-7 should precisely acknowledge the inherent right of first nations to govern themselves, including the acknowledgement of our unique status under treaty and section 35 of the Constitution.

In conclusion, I wish to reiterate my sincere hope that the concerns and recommendations contained in my presentation and those of my fellow chiefs will be taken seriously and result in Bill C-7 being either withdrawn or substantially amended in line with the wishes of the first nations.

We cannot afford to participate, nor do I want to waste my time in participating, in another charade where the result is a foregone conclusion. The supreme irony, in my view, in the introduction of this legislation is that while it is designed to promote responsible first nations governance, it is the federal government that has irresponsibly sought to unilaterally impose on us, without adequate consultation, legislation that is not fully transparent in its process, and as a result has hereby failed to be accountable to the first nations for whom they have a fiduciary responsibility to be fair and forthright.

¿ (0935)

There has been a sad history of this, much to our collective regret. It is a trend that I have sought to reverse in the most responsible way I know how, and I can only hope the committee process will not result in further regrets for generations to come.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation.

Mr. Martin, five minutes.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you very much for a very well thought out brief, with positive recommendations even, because I share with you the fear that they are not going to allow amendments to this bill. They are going to ram it through the way they are ramming through Bill C-6 as we speak. Even as this committee is on tour to study Bill C-7, Bill C-6 is being debated and we can't be there to voice our views about it. So I share with you that frustration, but I think it's wise that you put forward at least recommendations that might minimize the impact somewhat, and I appreciate how difficult that must be for you.

I also accept that this Bill C-7 finds its origins in a racial stereotype that was being promoted in the House of Commons. For two years straight I had to sit in my seat and listen to other members from other parties stand up and try to make the case that every first nation across the country is either irresponsible, or corrupt, or mismanaging their funds. They said it so many times they had the public believing them, whereas the facts are that 96% of all first nations are just like you; they filed their audits on time without any difficulty, etc. And even those 4% that do run into difficulty often run into difficulty because they don't have enough money to provide for the basic needs of their people, so they end up spending too much out of compassion, not out of irresponsibility.

You have made these points in a very powerful way, and I appreciate it very much.

There is one thing I would ask you, I suppose, in a specific question. The vice-chief of the Assembly of First Nations for British Columbia, Herb George, put forward recommendations as well, out of the same frustration, that we are not going to stop this so let's try to reduce the impact. If those amendments, which are similar to yours, go through, can you implement the recommendations in your own community given the two-year timeframe that you will be given to implement these imposed changes?

¿ (0940)

Chief Rod King: Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman, may I respond?

The Chair: Yes, you have three minutes to respond.

Chief Rod King: In my band we have all the regulations we need to run a good form of government. We have conflict of interest guidelines, we have codes of ethics, we have a band manual that we have developed over the last five or ten years, we have an education act, we have a financial administration act--we have all those acts that the Government of Canada sometimes doesn't use itself, but we do. We live in a very glass house that is viewed by a lot of non-Indians with a lot of contempt, I think, and I have to say that we have to be squeaky clean in order to live in this world. It's unfortunate that we have to do that, but we do.

Mr. Pat Martin: You are in a fish bowl because of some of the misinformation that's been spread.

There is one detail I forgot to mention that I would like your opinion on. Under Bill C-7, if you start any kind of economic development enterprise in your home community, you would not only have to show the books to your own band members, who probably have a right to see those books, but you would have to show those books to everyone else, even if I came along as an individual and demanded to see them. Any private individual can demand to see your books, even your competitors, in your business enterprise.

Can you comment on being held to that higher standard, a higher standard than anybody else in the country?

Chief Rod King: I really question the constitutional right to that. I think constitutionally we should be treated like any other enterprise that's in the economic business. We're not anybody special. We just want to be left alone and allowed to govern ourselves the way we have been governing ourselves for the last 100 years.

When it comes to economic development, I don't think there is.... Does Bell Canada show their audit reports to any one of you people? They sure as hell don't show them to me and none of the other chiefs of Saskatchewan. I'm sure they don't, and why should we?

The Chair: That completes the five minutes.

And the answer to that is yes. By law, a corporation must publish an annual report. So it's not a big deal and it's not your competitors coming in to look at your books. It's an accountability that is in law.

Mr. Dromisky, five minutes.

Mr. Pat Martin: I have point of order, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Make your point of order.

Mr. Pat Martin: You're making editorial comments that aren't even accurate, Mr. Chairman.

¿ (0945)

The Chair: Produce the bill and show us where their competitor will come in and look at the books.

Mr. Pat Martin: Okay, perhaps we can have a moment.

I will further clarify that only a publicly traded company would have to present that, and only to their shareholders. So let's not editorialize from the chair, especially if what you're saying isn't even accurate.

To the extent that Bill C-7 requires first nations, in clauses 7 to 9, to report on all financial affairs, including other government support, their own sources of revenue, and private sector funding, this bill could very well violate the band's collective privacy rights.

As well, this requirement would place the first nation at a competitive disadvantage in business development by virtue of being required to report financial matters to the public that other bodies are not required to report.

So this is a legitimate concern that the lawyers have found in the bill, that is, the obligation to divulge all your financial activities, even your own private enterprises, to the public. The public includes you, me, and the competitors.

The Chair: You have made your point of order. That's the opinion of a lawyer, and I grant you that.

We're moving on.

Mr. Dromisky.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I was very pleased by the kind of information you presented to us. I'm most impressed by your heavy emphasis on transparency and good governance, your audit of the last 25 years, and so forth.

Directly related to the argument that's going on right now, we're not talking about a big company and your sharing information with people all over the world or any of that matter. I'm talking about funds that are being provided for the operation, good governance and maintenance...and quality of life for your people and so forth. You're the chief.

On the cost of operating any program, whether it be health programs on the reserve or educational programs and so forth, is that type of information available to the members of your community? In other words, is there a balance sheet or some kind of data given even once a year to all your members?

Chief Rod King: Thanks for the question. Yes, we do. Three times a year we meet with our band members and we disclose all our books to them. They have every right to ask any question. Our auditor sits with them and we sit with them ourselves, and we let them go through the whole thing.

As a matter of fact, we go one step beyond that. We explain line by line how the money was spent, where it was spent, and who benefited from it. I don't know of any other way to be transparent than that.

Naturally, if Bill C-7 comes into effect, I would have some hesitation to start reporting about band enterprises that don't belong per se to public coffers, that were started without public coffers. I don't think we would share that with anybody.

Under Bill C-7 it says we have to do that. I think, members of the committee, you should seriously look at that in Bill C-7, where it talks about transparency when it comes to economic development.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: I think you're presenting a very valid point regarding that area of jurisdiction and governance and so forth.

However, I'm more concerned about the operation of your community and not the special economic development plans and enterprises that might be there. Do you understand?

Chief Rod King: Yes, I thought I answered the question.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: You did. You answered it beautifully. However, I'll ask you a very personal question.

Do the people in your community know what your salary is? Do you publish that?

Chief Rod King: Yes, they do. I don't get paid any money for being chief. I'm probably the only chief in Saskatchewan that can say in front of you, in all honesty, I don't get paid for being chief.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Mr. Chairman, he deserves a Queen's Jubilee Medal.

Chief Rod King: I do get a $10,000-a-year travelling allowance. That's all I receive as chief.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Well, I think if Bill C-7 goes through you're going to be acting as a model for a great number of first nations communities across this country, by the kinds of policies you have evolved and developed within your jurisdiction and by the outcomes that are credible, sustainable, and believable for all first nations people and everybody else in this country.

Thank you very much for coming.

The Chair: Thank you. You are to be commended, certainly. We will invite you to make closing remarks. You have up to five minutes.

Chief Rod King: I think I have done that, Mr. Chairman, but at least I want to thank you again for allowing me to appear before your committee. I trust you will go out and enjoy some of the warm weather we have. It's a lot warmer than yesterday.

Thank you very much.

¿ (0950)

The Chair: Thank you very much. One of the problems of travelling on committee work, for which everyone will vouch, is we have tightened up the schedule so much we don't benefit from all the good sights. But you made an excellent presentation and it will be very helpful.

Chief Rod King: Thank you.

The Chair: For all of you in the room, anyone who has not presented or is not scheduled to present and who wishes to make a two-minute presentation should just register at the table and we will grant you that time.

If John Victor Semaganis is here, I will invite you to make your presentation now for two minutes. You have to register at the table.

Mr. John Victor Semaganis.

Welcome. We invite you to make your two-minute presentation, sir.

Mr. John Victor Semaganis (As Individual): Thank you, Chairman.

I just want to identify myself. I am John Victor Semaganis, a member of the Little Pine reservation. I am a traditional politician. I believe in my inherent rights, which were bestowed to me by the Creator. These are inalienable. No person can change what was bestowed upon me.

Having said that, this Bill C-7, or whatever you are going to call it, the new governance thing, is very foreign to me. I'm at the grassroots level. Some of my people at my age don't even know what this is, what you people are presenting. It's not traditional. We had the traditional government with customary laws. I believe this to be true because I got this information from my grandfather and elders--other elders who were with the Queen Victoria Association, but I don't need to name them.

Anyway, what I see here, looking at what I read here, is that this is an attempt by the government to gain sovereignty with us. We have the sovereignty. The government has no sovereignty. I know that. They weren't given that. The Crown didn't give them sovereignty. The Crown recognized our sovereignty to govern ourselves. The Crown even withheld inherent rights that it would be capable of changing the treaties. The treaties that were signed by my people were in a communal way. Treaty 6 is where I belong. I'm a Treaty 6 member. Our people and the rest of the leaders signed in a communal fashion. No reserve is an island unto itself in the Treaty 6 area. We are all there together. What I have to say here is we, the people of Treaty 6, the signatories, are the inheritors of the treaties, and this is how we should look at that.

Yes, we have government, traditional government, not this new governance thing. We don't have that. It's something foreign to me. It's something that was conjured up by the federal government and the province wants in on that.

When our treaties were signed, the provinces weren't even in existence. As for Canada, there were no provinces, only the Upper and Lower Canada. Those were the only ones that were fledgling colonial provinces, so to speak. Our treaty was with the Crown, nation to nation. Sure, Canada did not sign it, but as a result of our treaties, Canada came into being with our own legal entity as well.

¿ (0955)

The Chair: We thank you very much. I allowed an extra minute. I want you and everyone here to know that when you do make the statement, and we thank you for accepting the offer, you have put on record, forever, your opinion.

Mr. John Victor Semaganis: I resent being cut off because—

The Chair: I understand, but it's a job I have to do as chair.

It may make you feel good to know that when the minister--Minister Nault--appeared, I had to cut him off twice. I have to be fair with everyone.

I thank you very much.

Mr. John Victor Semaganis: Thank you. I can see why you guys are fledglings--not doing it right.

The Chair: I'd like to invite to the table, from the University of Saskatchewan, Anna Hunter, assistant professor, Department of Political Studies. We have 30 minutes for this presentation.

Good morning and welcome. I urge you to start immediately because your clock is running.

Ms. Anna Hunter (Assistant Professor, Department of Political Studies, University of Saskatchewan): I'd like to begin by saying kisuuk kyukyit. Kisuuk kyukyit is how I say greetings in my indigenous language.

My name is Anna Hunter and I come from the Ktunaxa Nation, which is in the Kootenays. It is my special pleasure and honour to be here today making this submission to the standing committee, and it is a particular special honour to be joined by one of my students, Colleen Thomas. I'll make some time for Colleen to speak too. I'm proud because she is one of my only students who has risen to this opportunity to make a presentation today.

My traditional territory is located in British Columbia, Alberta, Montana, and Idaho. Today I carry the additional pride of knowing that two of the foremost leaders of my nation have already made presentations to this committee. I'm referring to Chief Sophie Pierre and Kathryn Teneese, who presented to the standing committee in Prince George.

I tell you that because I'm a little bit intimidated by this process, because I am not as well trained or as well versed in this as my leaders. I'm not as well trained and as well versed in my culture either, and I'll tell you why in a little while.

The Chair: Excuse me. I will say that you're doing extremely well. And we see this as a kitchen table, so feel comfortable.

Ms. Anna Hunter: I agree. I've read through some of the transcripts and you certainly make the experience more welcoming.

In the summer of 2002 I finished ten years of post-secondary education and I accepted a position at the University of Saskatchewan in the Department of Political Studies. I specialize and I teach primarily in aboriginal governance, aboriginal politics, and aboriginal public administration. I am involved in the development of an aboriginal public administration program that will be up and running by September 2003.

I am also a core faculty member in the indigenous peoples and justice initiative at the University of Saskatchewan. This is an interdisciplinary program that involves the Faculty of Law, the Department of Sociology, and the Department of Political Studies. It's involved in interconnecting these different disciplines into the pursuit of justice for indigenous people. It's really exciting and rewarding work, as you can imagine.

I'm also blessed with the ability to read and write for a living, which is something that not a lot of my fellow aboriginal people can say. I'm also blessed by being able to witness change firsthand. I can see the change in my students, in the aboriginal and non-aboriginal students I have, and in the work I do. I can see the change that knowledge and education can bring and what it can bring back to our communities, and I'm extremely happy by that.

With that in mind, I'm here primarily for the students, as a vehicle for the students. For the past two semesters I have been engaged in work on this initiative with my students, and I have been witnessing the work of a number of master's students and law students on this legislation as well.

I am drawing upon their work and my own work on this legislation in this presentation. I have already admitted a little trepidation because I've witnessed so many excellent reports already, and mine doesn't have PowerPoint or pictures or anything like that.

I would like to tell you that one of the reasons I am--well, there are two reasons. One of the reasons I am so honoured to be here is I teach Canadian politics, so it's nice to see Canadian politics in action and it's nice to see in person these people we read about.

The second reason it is a particular honour for me to be here today is that as an Indian, as a person defined as an Indian by the Indian Act, in my life and in the lives of my family I have witnessed and I have suffered at the hands of well-meaning and well-intentioned legislators and their legislation.

I want to tell you that at least three generations of my family have not had the privilege or honour of growing up with their immediate family--for three generations. And I tell you for at least three generations, because I don't know what happened before three generations. We can't trace back that far because we've been removed from each other. So for at least three generations we have been removed from our families, each time as the result of legislation that the Canadian government has felt unilaterally necessary to implement in order to redress one aspect of the Indian problem or another.

These unilateral undertakings have resulted in residential school policies that took my grandmother and my mother away from her family and the sixties “scoop” policies that took myself and four of the members of my family away from my family as well. These polices of control and assimilation are rooted in the original Indian Act, and it's particularly troubling to see that these policies have continued today in the year 2003.

This is the heart of why I'm here today. This is why I feel the responsibility to be here today. I want to let you see a different side, a face, of what this type of unilateral action does to our communities if it doesn't deal with our communities' needs directly. This is why I embarked on my post-secondary education studies, because I wanted to know how these devastating and unilateral policies and practices could be developed and implemented without consideration of the distinct cultural, social, and legal rights and responsibilities of the aboriginal people they are purporting to protect or purporting to help.

À (1000)

Obviously I'm still asking this question. Why is the federal government continuing to put forward legislation that does not have any cultural content, does not have the requisite meaningful consultation, and does not have widespread support from our communities or our national aboriginal organizations?

It is extremely troubling to me that this trend of unilateral decision-making has continued. It's important to state that as I watch the debates over this legislation, I am troubled by the polar extremes that people appear to be taking. This legislation is not a zero-sum game, and there are indeed certain sections in the legislation that deserve merit. So it's troubling if you just say you don't like it.

As first nations and non first nations people, we need to go through the legislation with a comb and pick out the good things. I think it's really important to point out that whether we like it or not, or whether it is politically correct or politically incorrect to say, there are communities governed by the Indian Act that have strong accountability issues. We can deny it as first nations people. Our politicians try to deny it. But there are communities that have vulnerable and marginalized members, and we would be doing a disservice to these people if we didn't recognize that there are necessary changes needed to the way the Indian Act is currently working.

I also feel strongly that the fiduciary obligation between the federal government and the first nations must work both ways. If first nations people are able to hold the federal government accountable to grievances and wrongdoings through the legal system, we must also allow the federal government to proactively implement necessary changes. It is imperative for the federal government and the Department of Indian Affairs to assertively protect the rights and responsibilities of all those people it's governing, not just our political elite. They need to be looking out for the marginalized members of our communities.

With this balancing in mind, it is important to note that the need for the legislation is not the problem. It must be really hard for some of our first nations people to argue against the need for basic administrative standards such as publishing annual budgets, having meetings, etc.

Furthermore, I've noticed a lot of the legislation already exists in a different format, and all the government is doing right now is clarifying and enhancing the existing policies and the case law.

Consider the status and capacity of Indian bands. Bands already have the right to sue, be sued, and enter into contracts. It is great that these relations are being clarified, and the same can be said for increasing bylaw-making powers, enforcement mechanisms, transparency, and financial stability. So the problem is not whether the legislation is necessary. The root of the problem is how the legislation is being approached.

For me, the two most important points to focus on are the lack of cultural fit and the lack of meaningful consultation. I would like to touch briefly on each of these two points.

In terms of the lack of cultural fit, this is more than an abstract, neo-traditional claim. All of the people in this room should know by now it is well documented that a key ingredient for any successful self-government project is a cultural fit or match.

It is not good enough to parachute the principles and practices of municipal governance and administration into first nations communities and expect them to work with any degree of success. I use as a concrete example clause 27, which allows a band enforcement officer to search property without a search warrant in exigent circumstances. I ask you, what are the standards that are going to be used to determine what “exigent” is, and who's going to be implementing these standards?

Is it going to be our non-aboriginal judiciary deciding what exigent is or isn't? Most of these people have never been to an Indian Act community, and they're going to judge our lives? I ask you to work these questions out ahead of time. I also ask you to consider the need to separate politics from administration, as it's promoted in this act.

I wonder how practical this idea is in a community like the one I come from. Columbia Lake Indian Band has 190 members, with only 100 on-reserve members. There will be no separation between politics and administration, because usually they're the same people or the same family.

À (1005)

I'm going to change it to a bit of an intellectual discourse. I'm going to draw upon the work of a master's student in the Department of Political Studies. Her name is Stéphanie Boissard.

The problem here can be understood by using the analogy of battling discourses. What we're looking at is the discourse of good governance versus the discourse of self-determination and self-government. We have a discourse of good governance that is based upon practical and administrative approaches, but it contains colonial and cultural baggage. It is culturally, historically, and ideologically oriented. This particular discourse is set up against the discourse of self-determination, which is based upon the inherent rights and principles and the legal recognition of the indigenous peoples' inherent rights.

By using this framework we can lead directly into section 35 versus section 91(24). Once again, it's not a zero-sum game. The federal government can't take one aspect of our Constitution and say we can legislate based upon section 91(24), without giving due and proper recognition to section 35. You can't pick and choose which section of the Constitution you want to be playing with.

It's important to know that the discourse of good governance has become tied to a narrow and particular approach for good government. We have substituted the particulars of one stream of good governance, and we have submitted our politics to the will of the economics of the situation. We need to bring back our politics and our traditional governing systems.

I'd just like to touch upon the lack of meaningful consultation. I think you know this already, but maybe you don't. I'd like to tell you that many people in our communities, probably the majority, are confused and afraid of this legislation. I am disheartened to note that I could be joined by only one student today because most of them were too afraid to come here and speak. This is alarming to me, because these are students that are well versed in bureaucratic language and administrative procedures. They study this for a living, and they still don't feel comfortable speaking. I wonder how comfortable the average aboriginal member, who isn't trained in this, would feel about speaking today.

I challenge you to respond to concerns about access and inclusion, access in terms of the language that is being used in these policies and in terms of basic geography. It was a two-hour drive today. It's a two-hour drive back. It's pretty interesting that we're only going to reach three places in Saskatchewan, but we're not going to reach Saskatoon, which has the second-highest number of aboriginal people in the province.

I think we need to talk about access in terms of the time that was provided for these discussions and the notice that was given for these presentations. I think we also need to think about access in terms of resources, both financial and human, for the indigenous people to be able to deal with this legislation.

With these in mind, I do have a number of solutions I would like to put forward really quickly. First nations need to be given a choice in this legislation. If the legislation is so fantastic, most people will come on board, if they haven't come on board already. We heard an excellent presentation right before mine on the avenues the first nations across the country are taking in this regard.

If necessary, I do support the incentive approach promoted earlier by John Graham to offer, for example, methods such as voluntary certification. First nations people aren't immune to incentives. You just have to do it instead of the control and assimilation that is so common.

À (1010)

I encourage the committee to recommend that we take our time in solving these problems. These problems have existed since the original Indian Act of 1876, so what is the hurry to solve them immediately? Let us work on the concept of meaningful and good faith consultation together, as equal partners. We need to consider the groups that are not participating in this process right now. We need to consider that if the primary aboriginal organizations are not participating or if some of them are participating under duress because they fear their funding will be cut off, there are deep-rooted issues that need to be addressed, and it is not good enough to ignore them and continue anyway.

The federal government needs to recognize the legacy of colonization and oppression that has occurred through the Indian Act before they make changes to it. There is a healing process that needs to take place, and it cannot be denied.

I want us to work on capacity development. In our communities we are definitely getting there. We are building our capacity. But two years before we skip over to default codes is not enough time for us to build the necessary capacity. The two-year time span needs to be increased.

Furthermore, as the AFN points out, we need the tools for governance. You don't skip right to the legislation. We need the tools for good governance. We need the skills, the education, the resources. We also need basics like housing, water, and employment. Those are the things that are going to get us to the good governance.

Finally, I recommend putting in the non-derogation. I stand on the team that says put in a non-derogation clause. We need to address the concerns of infringing on aboriginal and treaty rights, and though I don't fully put my trust in it, one of the clear ways to do this, one of the minimum standards for this, is to put in a non-derogation clause.

So in conclusion, yes, government mechanisms have been improved through these changes to the Indian Act, but the underlying relationship based upon assimilation and control has not been addressed. I think it's time to make this change.

I would like to turn the mike over to Coleen.

À (1015)

Ms. Coleen Thomas (As Individual): First, I want to acknowledge the Creator and Mother Earth who sustains us.

I welcome you, the committee, to the traditional territory of the Cree. I want to acknowledge all my relations who are present, the elders, and the chiefs. I am Blue Thunderbird Woman. I speak for my daughter and the future generations.

I came here to let you know that I'm opposed to this piece of legislation and other legislation like it, its companion legislation--the First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act, the First Nations Land Management Act, and the Specific Claims Resolution Act.

Specifically, Bill C-7 is a violation of section 35 of the Constitution Act, which affirms and recognizes our existing aboriginal rights, including, among many other things, our inherent right to independent self-governance. However, not only are these pieces of legislation, which include Bill C-7, a violation of your supreme law, but they're also a violation of the sacred promises that were negotiated with the Crown on behalf of your people and my ancestors for me and my daughter.

These treaties were negotiated under ceremony for my people. We made promises to the land. We made promises to the Creator. As I understand the treaties, your governments made promises to the land and the Creator by lifting up the treaties, holding them up to the sky, and saying that for as long as the sun shines on this land, these treaties would be honoured.

These sacred promises that were made to our Mother Earth and Creator as well as to each other were so we would have good, healthy relationships between our independent nations to share the land in a good way. I am here to let you know that by implementing these pieces of legislation, you're breaking sacred promises that were made by your people to mine.

When sacred promises such as these are broken, there are consequences, because the laws you are breaking are not just man's laws; they are the Creator's laws. I'm saying this for the record to let you know, you personally and your government, in case you didn't already know this. These pieces of legislation interfere with our inherent and sovereign right to govern ourselves and take care of our land for our future generations.

In conclusion, I would like to state that this process should be stopped immediately, and we should look at the spirit and intent of the treaties, not just the written treaties, as your government has in the past. Look at how these treaties were meant to be implemented. These treaties were meant to be implemented so we share the land.

The water you're drinking today, for example, was never given to you to use as a commodity, which is being considered. Your government is considering selling that. We never gave up that water you're drinking. That is your treaty right under our treaties.

I would like to say thank you.

(Witness speaks in her native language)

The Chair: I would like to say thank you, and there are still seven minutes.

Colleen, you're wise to accompany your professor. You've made an excellent presentation. You have a lot of courage. You should not need courage to come before a committee of government, but you do have, and I congratulate you for it.

Professor Hunter, my degree is in political science, and I know if you had been a professor at Laurentian University, I would have taken your courses. There's no doubt.

How do we do it, gang? We have seven minutes. Do you want a two-minute round?

Everybody gets a short question. Please make it short so we can hear from our guests.

Mr. Vellacott.

À (1020)

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Professor Hunter, clause 41 in Bill C-7 amends the Canadian Human Rights Act. Gender is the only category that thereby ends up being protected. Do you think that the full applicability of the Canadian Human Rights Act should apply for first nations people across our country so they have the same protections as anyone else across the nation of Canada?

Ms. Anna Hunter: I would like to acknowledge that I know that you are my fine representative in Parliament. Thank you very much. It's an honour to meet you.

I think that in cases like this we have to negotiate it. It's a painful and long process, but we have to negotiate our way into the Canadian Human Rights Act. While I would advocate for the protections offered through the Canadian Human Rights Act, that is not a decision for me to make for anyone. It is a nation-to-nation decision that needs to be negotiated.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Okay, thank you.

I want to commend you both again for being here today. I did enjoy your beautiful country in the Kootenays. I lived in the Castlegar, B.C., area.

We can pick up on my other question in a personal conversation, and you alluded to that in terms of the residential school situation. I haven't done an advanced study, and I know that much study is awareness to the brain, as an old saying goes. Would you have had the opportunities in terms of being here and presenting as articulately as you have, if there had been a residential school or if some other form of that might have been a possibility?

We can take it up on a personal basis or you can quickly respond if you want.

The Chair: I'm sorry, there is no time to respond.

Mr. Martin.

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

Thank you to both of you for being here.

Two minutes doesn't give me time to really compliment your brief, but as you are from the academic side of things, I would ask you whether you haven't already looked at or are familiar with the Harvard study on self-governance policy. One of the points they made was that the FNGA looked very much like the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934: similar mistakes were made. Would you care to comment briefly on the parallel there?

Ms. Anna Hunter: I think that my last degree was at the University of Arizona. I did a master's of law there.

Mr. Pat Martin: Oh, Dr. Cornell.

Ms. Anna Hunter: I didn't actually have the chance, but I studied with other notable professors, James Anaya and Robert Williams, Jr. And my chief, Sophie, works well with Cornell.

I think it should be pointed out that normally Canada is twenty years behind what is happening in the States, and we very rarely learn from what has happened in the States. Our mainstream governments don't learn and neither do our aboriginal governments. I think we are seeing the change now. There is more interconnection to see what's happened.

I think that if we are not careful we are going to see some of the patchwork quilts in our communities based upon what happened in the 1934 reorganization act. Not only is it important to point out that it is an important tie for further study, but I think it's important to point out that even when we look at bylaw enforcement officers, I am troubled to think what happened twenty and thirty years ago in the States. And we need to be careful there as well.

The final one is that template solutions will never work, and that was the Indian Reorganization Act's premise: that if you made everybody have a constitution it will all work. It will never work. We are all too diverse.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

On the Liberal side, who will take this? Mr. Hubbard.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I am really impressed with your presentation and also with the success you've had personally in going to university and developing a tremendous education.

And, Colleen, probably in terms of nearly all the treaties, education was deemed to be one of the most important aspects of those treaties in terms of offering to people.... In any case, over a hundred years ago the federal government had an obligation to see that an education was provided.

Mr. Vellacott alluded to education, and he didn't get a reply. Professor Hunter, perhaps you would like to reply to Mr. Vellacott's question. Many communities were small and there were various ways to address education. In my own community, for example, a lady had a one-room school, and she offered to many grades an education. But that's a difficult form of education in a small community. So perhaps we can devote part of the minute to Mr. Vellacott's question on the residential system and on people going away from their communities to get an education.

À (1025)

The Chair: Anna, there's less than a minute left, but I'll stop looking at the clock for about two or three minutes.

Ms. Anna Hunter: Great.

I think that's one of the most troubling and paradoxical aspects of my life, and I'm glad to be able to address it. I'll tell you about my life first, and then I'll tell you about residential schools.

I think the worst thing in my life is that my twin sister.... Well, there were four of us taken away from my mother and placed in the home of a white family. There were reasons for that. It was the end of the residential school. It was too obvious what the government was doing, so take the kids from the vulnerable families.

And the most paradoxical aspect is that I think it worked. It's the thing that makes me want to sit at home some days because I hate to think that the Canadian government policies worked and that I am a successful product of them. I think it's important. It's where I get the analysis that nothing we do here is a zero-sum game. Its not all good and it's not all bad. There is progress to be made.

But it is really troubling that I can speak to you in the academic, well-trained language of my western counterparts, but I can't speak to you in my own language. And that's the problem with the residential schools' policies and the 1960s school policies: you've lost my nation. You've lost my world view in favour of something else. And there was no choice there. I don't know if that gets to it.

So, yes, residential schools did have some merit, and not everyone had a bad time in residential schools, but we're still not speaking our languages. We still don't know our culture, and we have to step back from that. We had whole communities without kids, and that's unheard of.

The Chair: Thank you so much.

I think in closing I'll sum it up by saying the government should hire you to help them in negotiations. I'm sure you could contribute a lot to it, because you did contribute a lot here today, both of you. Thank you very much.

I now invite, from the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations, Chief Lyle Whitefish, who is replacing Chief Perry Bellegarde; Terrance Pelletier, executive director, treaty governance process; Merrilee Rasmussen, a lawyer representing FSIN; and Robert Mitchell, lawyer and negotiator, treaty governance process, FSIN.

I welcome all of you to the table. We have one hour together. I invite you to make your presentations and hopefully allow time for questions from my colleagues.

Chief Lyle Whitefish (Agency Tribal Council): I'd just like to say good morning to everyone who's here. My name is Lyle Whitefish, tribal chief for the Agency Chiefs Tribal Council. I'm here on behalf of the federation, and bring greetings from Chief Bellegarde, who is unable to be here, as he's currently tied up with the chiefs of the federation at an assembly in Saskatoon.

I'd also like to bring greetings from the chiefs from my region, the Agency Chiefs Tribal Council, Chief Bruce Morin, Chief Ken Thomas, as well as Chief Peter Bill.

This morning we will be presenting our statements, the documents you have before you.

The Chair: And I will say, while we're waiting for them to be distributed, that these documents will be provided for all members of the committee, even those who were unable to attend today.

Chief Lyle Whitefish: The document we will put forward this morning for the record. I will just read the summary of it, and then I'll open the table for questions.

While the First Nations Governance Act may be intended to improve first nations' socio-economic outcomes, first nations people strongly believe that Bill C-7 will not achieve that objective.

First nations strongly believe in the honour of the Crown. First nations believe Bill C-7 is a less than honourable process. Bill C-7 flies in the face of the high expectations we have of the Crown.

We all know the demographics. More first nations babies will die as infants. More first nations youth will go to jail than finish high school. More elders will die of diseases nearly eradicated in the non-first-nations population. This is a first nations reality. This is our life.

Respecting treaty is important in maintaining honour. We do not require structures imposed on us from Ottawa. What we need is acknowledgement of the jurisdiction and authority that is inherent in us as self-determining peoples, affirmed by a treaty, and recognized and affirmed by the Constitution.

What we need is space within which to make our own social and economic decisions for our own communities. Our people, like people everywhere, will hold us responsible and accountable.

First nations want to govern in accordance with our own cultures, traditions, and beliefs. The approach that should be followed to achieve an improved socio-economic outcome for the first nations has already started in Saskatchewan. This is a made-in-Saskatchewan approach, which is what the federation is currently working on.

The made-in-Saskatchewan approach is tailored to our situation and is responsive to our needs and aspirations. Canada and FSIN have a process that will result in unique self-government arrangements flowing from the treaty relationship.

Our elders tell us that treaty was never meant to undermine our way of life or our ability to govern ourselves. The survival and security of first nations and the well-being of their citizens since time immemorial has depended on their ability to follow the laws given by the Creator.

We must address the issues of jurisdiction, authority, and governance as first nations see them. Decision-making must take first nations where they want to go. The priorities must come from first nations, who determine how to get there, rather than being objects of imposed federal power.

According to the Harvard Project, sovereignty matters, institutions matter, and culture and tradition matter. They matter in that without them, socio-economic development is not possible or sustainable. Over 15 years of research by Harvard University found that when trying to make their own decisions about what approaches to take and what resources to develop, tribal decision-makers consistently outperform non-tribal decision-makers.

In Canada, first nations and the Crown have an established legal foundation in treaty, and they are building on that. Capacity has been built in Saskatchewan from the community level up. The institutions first nations conceived and organized with a vision of the future work. They work because first nation communities developed them. Take for example the Saskatchewan Indian Cultural Centre, the Saskatchewan Indian Federated College, the Saskatchewan Indian Institute of Technologies, and the First Nations Bank of Canada.

On the FSIN treaty governance process, the FSIN represents the first nations in the treaty governance process in Saskatchewan. The FSIN is governed by the chiefs-in-assembly of 73 first nations who are signatories to the FSIN convention.

À (1030)

Regarding the treaty table, a bilateral forum, despite the treaty promise to meet annually to discuss implementation of treaty, it was not until 1989 that the first nations and Canada began developing a plan to establish a forum to deal with outstanding treaty issues. There was considerable success in dealing with treaty land entitlement. FSIN and Canada then signed an agreement in 1996 to lay out the groundwork for discussions about treaty and jurisdiction and authority of first nations.

When the made-in-Saskatchewan process began, both Canada and FSIN agreed that a new paradigm for first nations relations in Saskatchewan was required. Canada committed to work in partnership with treaty first nations in Saskatchewan. Canada agreed that it would not create new policies nor change its policies with respect to treaty while we are engaged in the treaty governance process.

Common understandings reached about the nature, purpose, and future of treaty include that treaty is to provide both parties with the means of achieving survival and stability, anchored on the principle of mutual benefit; treaty is a means to build lasting and meaningful alliances; and in entering treaty, both parties recognize the other's authority and capacity to enter into treaty on behalf of their own people.

Regarding the common table, a trilateral forum, a three-party forum was also created in 1996 for high-level political discussions among the FSIN chief, the federal Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and the provincial Minister of Aboriginal Affairs in Saskatchewan in order to discuss treaty matters of mutual concern and priority that affect all three governments, identify and facilitate effective processes for negotiating and implementing a new framework, define the intergovernmental relationship with treaty first nations, and discuss the linkage between new fiscal arrangements and jurisdiction in first nations government.

Two additional tables were established to support the treaty governance process: the governance and the fiscal relations tables. It is important to understand that we are not defining the nature, scope, and extent of any treaty or aboriginal rights.

The fiscal relations table works on fiscal issues for the new government-to-government relationship. The fiscal framework is to be more than an annual transfer of moneys set by the Crown. It must ensure that first nations governments have a stable and predictable fiscal relationship with both Canada and Saskatchewan.

In conclusion, our work at the treaty table and the governance and fiscal relations tables established under the common table umbrella is leading to the conclusion of an agreement in principle that has many of the same features as the First Nations Governance Act, but from a critically different starting point.

The made-in-Saskatchewan approach starts with first nations. The process provides for the development of codes and legislation that first nations themselves will make and enact. It is critical for first nations to determine what they want. First nations must have the leading role in their governance to respond to their own needs; otherwise, first nations won't view it as legitimate. For these reasons, the First Nations Governance Act will not accomplish its supposed objectives.

What the made-in-Saskatchewan approach offers is both the flexibility needed for good governance that comes from the community and the necessary jurisdictional controls and fiscal resources to exercise what they design. The development of this framework for first nations governance will position first nations to address those matters of the greatest concern of their peoples. The made-in-Saskatchewan approach does not impose; it empowers.

That concludes my summary this morning.

À (1035)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We have sufficient time for questions, so we'll start with a seven-minute round.

Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Thank you very much for being here, one and all--Merrilee, Bob, Lyle, and Terrance.

I guess my question off the top would be that I find a comment here a little disturbing, and I need to better understand it.

In the middle of page 3, at least of my copy, it says “Canada agreed that it would not create new policies nor change its policies with respect to Treaty while we are engaged in the Treaty Governance Process.” Was this the commitment of the treaty commissioner on behalf of the Government of Canada?

I know Judge Arnot some, and I assume that if it was stated here, it was documented, and so on. To me, it's a little troubling if there's a commitment and now we're into this process. So it's obviously a clear violation of a “commitment”--in quotation marks--that has been made to those in this province.

I don't know who would be responding to that.

À (1040)

Mr. Robert Mitchell (Lawyer, Negotiator, Treaty Governance Process, As Individual): It was before my time. I have been involved in this process for a little over four years. My understanding, though, is that it was a commitment by the negotiator for the federal government at the treaty table.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: So is it kind of a verbal statement? Is it on paper, written down?

Mr. Robert Mitchell: As far as I know, it is a verbal statement, a verbal undertaking, not documented, as far as I know. But that was the understanding on which this process began, that those changes would not happen, that we would sort of maintain the status quo until the process was done.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Clearly, then, the position as reflected there would have been that even though there are problems and major flaws with the Indian Act, we just stay with that and move as expeditiously as possible on this other approach. Is that what the assumption is, that we are okay, that we know the Indian Act is not a wonderful document, but we just stay with that, that we have nothing interim, nothing transitional, until we get the self-government agreements or self-determination?

Mr. Robert Mitchell: Yes, that was our understanding.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Okay.

Terrance.

Mr. Terrance Pelletier (Executive Director, Treaty Governance Process, Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations): Thank you.

There are three parties to the talks we are having. It wasn't just for the first nation side that we needed this level of comfort that there wouldn't be any pullbacks of what the government was currently providing for Indian people. It was also a concern of the provincial government. There is always a funding concern for the off-reserve people, and the Saskatchewan government wanted that comfort as well, that whatever level of funding existed for off-reserve people, if there was any, there would be no off-loading, or not any more off-loading to the provincial government for Indian people living off reserve. So it wasn't just from the first nations' concern; it was also from the provincial government's concern.

This is always a bone of contention, whether that obligation that was made, as Bob pointed out, has been lived up to or not.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Right, because it would appear that either that was not conveyed or that person....

I guess we would question whether they were really accurately speaking on behalf of the government, or maybe they never conveyed that to their federal counterparts--the department, and so on--because we have Bill C-7, and as you say, that would be a breach of a clearly stated--

Mr. Terrance Pelletier: Exactly, and that would be the provincial government's point of view as well, that there has been some off-loading since these talks have been undertaken. So it's always a bone of contention at the negotiations.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I'll ask you very quickly, then, what do you suggest? I think you're all aware that we are honest and fair-minded people here today. When different members of Parliament, different MLAs, and so on--and Bob, in your term as a minister--get individuals who have concerns, band members, and so on, sometimes there is substance to it and sometimes there might not be, but they feel that they have been really hard done by in some situation, that their rights haven't been honoured, and so on, on reserve; they have a problem with their leadership, the chief, the council.

Yes, indeed, there are a lot of good situations, and I have been into some of those situations in our country, fortunately. But there are those other situations where band governance isn't happening as it should and there is some abuse of power, and so on; money isn't handled as it ought to be. How does one deal with that in the interim? Do we just say the Indian Act and police and those types of things, or do you have an approach that can quickly address that from FSIN, that gets at those very heart-wrenching concerns that we know about unfortunately too well?

Mr. Terrance Pelletier: You always look at the source of the conflict or what the conflict is over. Conflict exists on the reserve.

I was the chief of the Cowessess for three years recently. I worked on the treaty land entitlement process with our reserve. Of course I grew up on that reserve, went to boarding school, and raised a lot of children on our reserve. I'll give you an example of where we would have a conflict with our government.

When I wasn't a chief I had a conflict with my chief and council over housing. It's always the perception that chiefs and councils give us housing, and they're always picking their favourite people or their own families to dish out whatever benefits we get on the reserve. But if you look at the Cowessess situation right now--and when I was chief--there are about 150 people on the waiting list for housing. We don't get 150 houses at any given time. So you could have the best rules possible....

We're not saying we don't need good governance. Under this process we commit to good governance. We commit to addressing those situations where we have problems with our members. But a good governance process itself is not going to take care of the social situation we face, especially in the area of housing.

If you have 150 people on your housing list and you get five houses over two or three years, somebody is going to complain. So it's not necessarily bad governance that is the issue; it's not having enough resources to meet the needs of the people. There's always a conflict over very sparse resources. So good governance itself, with the best, fairest, most efficient way of distributing houses, is not going to end people's complaining, because we need the resources.

À (1045)

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I know Lyle wants to get in here. At some point I want to talk with you about ombudsmen, in relation to what you've said.

The Chair: We will probably have time for a second round.

Mr. Martin is next for seven minutes.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to all of you for making this brief.

The previous presentation made the point that the consultation process has been flawed throughout this introduction of the FNGA. It even went as far as implying it's an issue of natural justice to allow genuine access to the process, which might include resources or even geography, in terms of not having enough of these meetings.

Is it the view of the FSIN that aboriginal first nations communities were involved in the consultation and development of the FNGA?

Chief Lyle Whitefish: Again, that question was asked previously. From our meetings with Indian Affairs we believe, of course, our people were not fully consulted and we were not part of this process at all. In fact, in some communities they would call a meeting and have four or six people there out of a population of 2,000 people and call it a consultation. That was not a consultation.

The federation was not approached. First nations people, tribal councils, were not approached fully. I don't know where this thing came from, but we were not asked to participate in the discussion and decisions. We also don't fully agree with the Indian Act.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you. That's exactly the answer I was hoping to hear. That certainly verifies what we've heard right across the country--that the consultation process was a sham, if anything, and can't be called genuine consultation.

After Bill C-7 becomes law--and we believe it will--if within two years you haven't introduced codes of governance that comply with the standards being imposed, a default system will be imposed upon you. But you don't even know what the default codes look like because they haven't even been developed yet.

Could you comment on the fairness of that?

Chief Lyle Whitefish: I would like to disagree with your comment that the process will go through. We'd like to see it halted. We want to be fully consulted.

We're not worried about the default codes in those three areas. I'm speaking on behalf of the agency. We disagree with the process. We're not sure what the outcome will be in the area of default codes. In the process we have here, if this goes through, we'll be dealing with the types of issues you currently have on the table with the First Nations Governance Act. We want our own process. We will deal with the very codes you mentioned.

À (1050)

Mr. Pat Martin: You made reference to the Harvard study, as have many of the presenters across the country. It's the most comprehensive analysis of economic development models that do work in the United States. One of the points they make clearly is that good governance without genuine sovereignty is about as likely to succeed as sovereignty without good governance. Therefore, the message we're getting is that they wish government would concentrate on developing genuine sovereignty by expanding or enhancing the treaty negotiations, rather than by tinkering with the Indian Act at this juncture in our history. Could you comment on that in terms of the priorities the government has chosen to deal with at this time?

Mr. Terrance Pelletier: The issue of sovereignty and jurisdiction for Indian people is very short. It extends almost to the reserve borders. Unless we're able to set the priorities for all of the people in education or housing, then we're not making very much of an impact on the socio-economic well-being of our people. With the sovereignty and jurisdiction we have a treaty right that extends beyond the reserve borders. The inherent right to govern ourselves extends over all of our people, whether they live on or off the reserve.

As it currently stands, the bulk of the funding is limited to the reserve borders. We have no impact on the people outside of our borders. When we're recognized as having full jurisdiction over all of our people, then the resources necessary to meet the needs of our people have to extend to all of those people as well. If we don't have the law-making authority or the power to set our priorities, then our people are out of our jurisdiction. We have no effect on their lives whatsoever. So the jurisdiction and the resources have to go hand in hand and have to extend beyond what currently exists, because our treaty rights are portable.

Mr. Pat Martin: With regard to the model you've brought us today, it's very heartening, if I can put it that way, that there has been this level of cooperation and that you've come this far down the road of making a meaningful impact. Do you view the FNGA as a help or a hindrance to what you've put forward here today as the made-in-Saskatchewan approach toward the emancipation of aboriginal people?

The Chair: The time is up, but you will certainly have time to answer that, because we will make sure you have a number of minutes for closing remarks. You might want to note that.

Ms. Karetak-Lindell, for seven minutes.

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

Thank you very much for your presentations.

I haven't spoken very much during these tours, but I can honestly say I'm very impressed with the presentations. We do take them to heart. I'm an aboriginal person of Canada. I represent the territory of Nunavut, which is a new territory. Because my history is very different from yours, this is also a very good learning curve for me.

I can relate to a lot of the issues you talk about. You talk about housing and how you get so few houses to allocate, yet you do what you can with what's given to you. But yes, there will always be people who want to appeal. I fully understand all that, but because my history is very different, this is a real learning curve for me.

I would like to think that attending public hearings also gives an opportunity to showcase the ability of the people, the professionalism of first nations people and how they're handling their affairs. It really makes other people take note that these are people who know what they're doing, and they should get an opportunity to put those practices into place.

In the notes I've written, I've noted each time people have talked about what they already have working in their communities. In getting this bill that first reading, I take that very seriously, because I want to put as much of what you're saying into reality with the capabilities that are given to us. As a committee, we are given this legislation to try to give something back to the House of Commons that will move the issues forward.

When you talk about all the systems you have, I feel my job and the committee's job is to see how that can fit into what we have. How can we make sure it becomes a way of meshing the codes? People might have different words for them, but I see you have a code for all the different issues that we're also trying to achieve in this.

If there were some way to take what you have and incorporate it, how would that make you feel about this legislation? If you're taking those principles you have and they get accepted as meeting what we're trying to achieve here, would that give you some comfort level that it's not a whole new set of different things we're trying to impose?

À (1055)

Mr. Terrance Pelletier: No, it wouldn't. There are some similarities between what is proposed under the First Nations Governance Act and what we're doing, but there are some very critical differences that are apparent in our process.

The FNGA, as I understand it, to dwell on similarities, deals with the administration of programs and services--that's fine--accountability of band governments to their people, which is all right, and elections of chiefs and councils. We deal with those issues within our process as well, and we're not saying that's not needed. Those are attributes of good governance.

The critical difference between what you're proposing and what we're trying to negotiate is that the process of the First Nations Governance Act is not a treaty-based process. It's a delegated model of government that comes from the top down. In our process, we're talking about a treaty right or an inherent right to self-government under section 35, not a legislation-based governance. It's our right to govern ourselves, and that's a critical difference.

The other difference, I think--and it was alluded to further--is that sovereignty and resources go hand in hand. You're talking about good governance, but inadequate resources to make that governance effective. What we're trying to do in our process is talk not just about good governance and all its attributes, but also about adequate fiscal relationships based on our treaty. That's a key part of what we're doing here.

So there are differences. And no, I don't believe the FNGA.... Even if we incorporated some of what we're talking about here, those are very critical differences in the processes.

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: So are you saying that you are in negotiations now with the federal government for self-government? Can you explain? Sometimes when people say self-government treaty negotiations, for some of us who are not using those terms in our everyday lives, we don't know what the difference is. Are they the same? Maybe you can enlighten the rest of us. We start throwing around terms that we think everybody understands too.

Mr. Terrance Pelletier: We're involved in treaty governance processes, and “processes” is a very good word, because self-government doesn't just happen. We've been engaged in this process since 1996. When they established the treaty table, they made statements of treaty issues, and that's part of the booklet that went around, the blue booklet. That was started.

In I think it was 2000, we signed another aspect of that process, which was to go on and negotiate an agreement in principle. We're not negotiating self-government per se in the agreement in principle, but it contains principles on which we can undertake a second stage of negotiating self-government arrangements. What we're doing now is we're trying to complete the first stage, which is an agreement in principle that this agreement contains principles on which we would base our self-government negotiations.

Key parts of the agreement in principle that would form the basis of our self-government agreement are issues like comparability. We're not equal in this country. The disparity in the standard of living in Saskatchewan between Indian people and non-Indian people is very great and it's very stark. So when we're talking about new relationships, we want a comparable standard of living, so comparability is a key part of the agreement in principle. So when we start the negotiations on self-government in the second phase, that would form the basis of our negotiations.

We're not quite dealing with self-government arrangements. We're dealing with principles relating to good governance and things like that, but not self-government negotiations per se.

Á (1100)

The Chair: Thank you very much. I allowed an extra minute because It was so interesting I didn't want to break it up.

We'll do another round of five minutes this time.

Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I want to get to this thing that I had mentioned at the tail end of my query before there. I see this Bill C-7--and I would assume that most of our committee members do, but I'm only able to speak for myself--as a transition, at best a temporary interim, and if it passes I think there are some significant amendments that would need to be made. I think there were problems with the consultation and so on.

Given that, if one were to concede it's a transitional, temporary, and interim measure, the sooner we get to self-government agreements and so on the better. I think that would be in the best interests of all, at least as bands feel they're ready for it.

But the issue of an ombudsman has been proposed before, and I'm wondering if there would be.... Because the Canadian Human Rights Act doesn't apply because of the Indian Act, and there's not the normal recourse to the justice system and so on, could an ombudsman almost serve as a protection for chief and council and people on reserve situations? If you would choose that person as a first nations individual, you would be the one who set the parameters in terms of what that individual does, and help select that person. They would be a first nations person probably, but they would have some powers of investigation, some powers of sanction or stricture, so that when issues do come up--and I think it's issues of perception sometimes, and sometimes it's not of real substance, sometimes it might be--I suppose that individual would weigh them under normal due process and so on. Then there would be maybe perceptions of these issues as having being addressed--a redress mechanism, if you will.

Is that something there is some openness to on the part of the national ombudsman, possibly at the regional offices? Is that something you would give me some comment or input on?

Mr. Terrance Pelletier: Outside of this process, in the FSIN the chiefs had proposed an ombudsman, a province-wide ombudsman. So yes, we see that as necessary to having, first of all, an attribute of good governance and, like you said, at least so people could have an avenue to address their conflict. We've already proposed that outside of this process, and that would form part of our process as well. So it's not that we're opposed to it; in fact we think it's a necessary part of government.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Right. Personally, I would see something like that being even a protection for those in leadership, because what do you do if in fact you're under Bill C-7?

As this bill stands right now, that individual is appointed by chief and council. If I were a leader on a reserve, or mayor of a community, and I'm appointing that person, I'm not really comfortable with that because I think there needs to be a sense of independence. So if it's going to be a scrutiny of my activities as a political leader, for my protection, if you will, it has to be deemed as independent of me in the province, or however it happens to be. So I have a problem, a concern, with the possibility of it as it is in Bill C-7. I don't think it's an adequate protection for leadership and council, and there's a necessity to have it outside, independent of, so that then at the end of day, when these cases or issues are dealt with, we can say the person's concern was heard and it was set aside; there was not a basis or real substance for it, otherwise, this is how it was dealt with--and take it from there.

So do you have a written proposal that came forward at some point in the past when this was supported by FSIN? Do you have some specific suggestion? I would be interested personally in receiving that.

Á (1105)

Mr. Terrance Pelletier: We had already drafted it, and in the process for bringing about those types of institutions, if you will, we do have to bring it to, first of all, an Indian government, which is a smaller group of the assembly, and then bring it to the assembly itself. So those types of--

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Are they publicly available then? Could you pass me a copy of that so I could get the details? I'd greatly appreciate it.

Mr. Terrance Pelletier: Yes, I will.

The Chair: I'll make a correction. Would you give a copy to the clerk, so that everyone will get it?

Mr. Terrance Pelletier Sure. I don't have it on me. I'd have to get it from the office.

The Chair: We would appreciate it if you would forward it.

Mr. Terrance Pelletier: Mr. Chair, I'd introduce our elder, Jimmy Myo, and I'd appreciate it if at the end we could have maybe two minutes so he could have some closing comments. He's a critical part of our advisory team when we're dealing with our processes.

The Chair: We will make sure that happens, and to do that we're at four minutes and we're going to end it there. And the round will become a four-minute round instead of five minutes.

Mr. Martin, four minutes.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you.

Because we have such little time, I'd like to ask you about some of the specifics of Bill C-7, one of which is the lack of a non-derogation clause. Could you get on the record your view of the apprehension people fear when they see legislation coming down the pike without any non-derogation clause reference?

Ms. Merrilee Rasmussen (Legal Counsel, Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We are aware that this has become an issue recently, and our preliminary thinking in relation to this issue is that the elimination of non-derogation clauses in this context is a problem.

The analogies made to other provisions of the Constitution don't bear up in this context because, for example, we don't need to say that all legislation is consistent with the section 15 guarantees of equality, because that's set in the Constitution.

The difference with section 35 rights is that they're not defined. They're protected. They're also capable of being infringed. So we would think that the elimination of the non-derogation clause would take away a protection from having a piece of legislation interpreted as having been an infringement that's justified. Because if we include a non-derogation clause, I don't think an infringement can be implied. So I think it's serving a very valuable purpose in this situation because of the nature of the rights that are being protected rather than articulated in the Constitution.

Mr. Pat Martin: Very well put. Thank you very much.

There's one article, subclause 9(3), that says that all financial statements must be made publicly available, not just to band members but to the general public--to you or me or anybody--or in the event of a private enterprise on your reserve, for instance, your competition could knock on the door and demand to see your papers. We view it as an infringement of privacy and possibly even a constitutional issue. Can you comment on that particular clause in the bill?

Mr. Terrance Pelletier: There isn't an issue with a lot of the reserves in terms of making those types of statements public. I can give you the example of Cowessess, and I know that it's followed by a lot of the other bands as well. When we have our yearly meeting on our audit, we make those statements available to everybody. It sits there, and for any entity, or business entity, it's available as well.

To give a practical example of who it's available to, we have 3,000 band members on Cowessess; 600 live on the reserve and there are 1,800 voting members. So everybody has access to that. When we have our meetings, it's--

Mr. Pat Martin: That's every band member, though. This bill would contemplate any citizen of Canada who demanded to see your papers.

Á (1110)

Mr. Terrance Pelletier: As I understand the new processes, they're available on the website, the audits. They're very much public already. So it's not anything new, I don't think.

Mr. Pat Martin: Your actual business too? For instance, say you started a manufacturing plant on your community, using your own private funds. You would have to show your documents to your direct competition, which might be, in the town of North Battleford, another plant building the same widgits. You would then have to divulge all of your financial information to your direct competition.

Mr. Terrance Pelletier: I can give you an example. In Cowessess we have a golf course that would be in competition with a lot of the nearby reserves, and those types of audits have to be made available. That's a band business.

Mr. Pat Martin: Available to whom?

Mr. Terrance Pelletier: To the public.

Mr. Pat Martin: To the public? Unless it's a publicly traded company, what business has to divulge all of their records to the general public?

Mr. Terrance Pelletier: That is what the requirement was under the Indian Act, as I understand. If we have a band business at the Last Oak Golf and Country Club, we have to make those audits public.

Mr. Pat Martin: They must be available to your band members, not to the general public. I see.

If I have a moment left--

The Chair: No; you're 40 seconds over, as a matter of fact.

Mr. Dromisky.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Thank you very much.

I have to admit I'm very impressed by your presentation.

I'm a new member on the committee. This is my first week. I was on the defence committee, then I was plucked out of there and put here. I'll tell you one thing, the defence committee was far more peaceful.

However, I'm very intrigued by your references to a treaty table and a common table here, these trilateral and bilateral fora. I'm not too sure if they're really the same thing. I don't know if all provinces do something like this, but I find it very fascinating, what's happening here.

I get the impression that this has been in operation since 1996. Do these people meet once a year, maybe for a two- or three-day conference or something, to work on this? How does this work? I notice the government signed on something here. Anything the government signs always involves money.

Is there money involved? How often do they meet? Are you making any progress yet on the principle? You've been operating seven or eight years already. Give me some background on this.

Mr. Robert Mitchell: I can answer that question.

The treaty table described in the material in front of you has the purpose of exploring treaties and the true meaning and intent of treaties. Elder Myo has sat at that table since its inception. It meets regularly each month, and has been doing so for all these many years now. They've done some wonderful work on the true meaning and intent of treaties, and they continue to do so. We are very satisfied with the way in which that process has worked.

The common table is the one that involves Saskatchewan as well as Canada and the FSIN. Its composition was described to you as the Minister of Indian Affairs, the Chief of the FSIN, and the appropriate minister from Saskatchewan.

That common table has set up two tables to do the actual work. One is the governance table and the other is the fiscal relations table. They work parallel to each other. As a matter of fact, we've now merged those tables. So they're one table. We have been meeting monthly, in the case of the fiscal table, for something like six years, and in the case of the governance table for almost five years, and we have made enormous progress.

We expect to complete an agreement in principle by the end of March. The negotiators will initial it shortly after the end of March. Then it will be taken out to the bands in Saskatchewan for their approval of the agreement in principle. Then, as Terry Pelletier has mentioned, we'll move on to fill in the details around self-government, but the principles of self-government will be contained in that agreement.

This is the most exciting thing I have ever experienced in this area. This is real. We're heading towards real self-government.

One of its features is that the Indian Act will not apply so far as bands in Saskatchewan are concerned who approve of this process. The First Nations Governance Act is an incentive for many bands to get involved in this process, whereas without it they may have had some skepticism.

Á (1115)

The Chair: Thank you. There are about 20 seconds. Can you respond on funding?

Mr. Robert Mitchell: The federal government has been funding the process, as far as we're concerned. I'm not sure how much the funding is.

Mr. Terrance Pelletier: I can answer that.

As I understood it, up until last year about $25 million has been spent on the process since its inception. The funding arrangements that currently exist were not part of the PTO reviews in terms of our department's funding. It doesn't come with FSIN's regular funding.

It also doesn't come with the regular self-government funding Canada currently provides to other bands. We're somewhere in the discretionary pool at the executive level at Indian Affairs and at the minister's level. We're kind of off to the side from everybody else, and the funding goes year to year.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Vellacott, three minutes.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I was interested to hear Mr. Mitchell's comment at the end here that, for good or bad--and it was mentioned by the professor before, and Anna was mentioning it's not a zero-sum game--there has been a kind of stimulus, if you will, to get involved with your tables by virtue of Bill C-7. Did I understand you correctly on that? Is there a movement towards that?

Mr. Robert Mitchell: It's certainly my perception. I've heard it said. The First Nations Governance Act is not highly regarded in this province at all among Indian people, and this process does provide a clear way to get out from under the Indian Act and the First Nations Governance Act.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: So clearly, some first nations are willing to get on board with the other tables instead, so they don't have to have Bill C-7 apply to them. If this initialling process happens by April sometime, how long before it is taken out to the various bands across the country for their approval?

Mr. Robert Mitchell: We'll take it out this summer.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: And will that process be completed by the fall, or year end, or next spring?

Mr. Robert Mitchell: Yes, by fall, and then the other two governments, Canada and Saskatchewan, will presumably approve it. Then there's probably a year and a half or two years of work to get to a final agreement, to fill in the detail.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Right. And those bands who don't choose to be in at that point are still under the Indian Act as it presently stands.

Mr. Robert Mitchell: Yes.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: That completes my comments. Thanks very much for being here.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Martin, three minutes.

Mr. Pat Martin: What a luxury of time we're getting this round.

It's my observation that the FNGA seems like a model of how not to do things if one is serious about re-establishing the relationship with the federal government, and your model seems like one that perhaps should be endorsed and adopted.

Now, if we're successful in stopping Bill C-7, then certainly we'd like to do a lot more investigation as a committee into the process you've gone through--at a relatively minor cost, I might add, compared to what it's going to cost to impose the FNGA on 633 first nations across the country who don't want it. That $25 million over eight years seems like a bargain.

I asked the question originally, do you think the FNGA will be a help or a hindrance to your process? It's been answered in a backhanded way. The FNGA may be so badly viewed that people may flock to your process and buy into the other option. My only fear is that under the FNGA, if you don't do that within two years the default code kicks in and there's no option after that to negotiate your own alternative process.

I guess you could use the last closing moments to talk about the fairness of this default code that may kick in and may even become an obstacle to first nations in your province who wish to go to your tables but find that it's too late because they've already had the default code imposed on them.

Chief Lyle Whitefish: I'll answer that.

Again, it's a piece of legislation that's being forced upon us, and that's what we disagree with. We don't like being told, in study after study coming directly from Ottawa, “This is what's good for you”. We know what's good for us, and we're working towards a situation where we can govern ourselves. That's what we're working on in this area in Saskatchewan.

And of course the answer there is that this is a Saskatchewan-made piece of legislation, and we're still working on it.

Á (1120)

Mr. Pat Martin: This is what we're hearing from Manitoba too. There's a fear that the framework agreement, as they call it--which is similar to what you've undertaken here--may be jeopardized by the FNGA. All the progress to date towards meaningful and cooperative change may be undermined and jeopardized by the fact that the minister is now shifting priorities onto this imposed template, if you will, that's supposed to be a cookie-cutter, one-size-fits-all approach right across the country. In my opinion, it's doomed to fail, and I'm glad to have that reinforced by you today.

Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Martin.

Mr. Hubbard, three minutes.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, everyone.

I think Mr. Mitchell made the remark that Bill C-7 doesn't fit in very well here with things in Saskatchewan. But if we go back in terms of the correspondence on this to early 2001, when the first letters were sent out indicating that the minister was undertaking a consideration of change in the Indian Act and bringing in new systems of legislation dealing with governance, we heard also that in some meetings of various groups, in maybe a community of several thousand people, only six showed up to discuss this.

I wonder if we might get a few comments on why chiefs decided not to become actively involved in the process of developing the legislation in terms of letters that were sent from the minister and from the regional director. Secondly, why, after all this has happened, today even, don't we have a lot of suggestions for amendments to Bill C-7? Maybe they are to come, and of course the committee would look forward to written presentations in terms of the legislation itself, but it puts us in a very difficult position when the opportunity was there and it was not taken. At least we assume it was not taken. Maybe we could be advised otherwise, but it didn't appear the opportunity was taken to dialogue and discuss with departmental officials in terms of making recommendations in terms of governance.

The Chair: Mr. Whitefish.

Chief Lyle Whitefish: Yes, to answer your question as to why chiefs were not involved, why would chiefs be involved in a process of changes to the Indian Act when they're opposed to it--the entire piece of legislation--to begin with? We want our treaties to be recognized. We're working at a process where we're driven by a treaty process here in Saskatchewan, and that's what we're presenting here today.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: We assume the position is you're opposed to changes in the Indian Act of 1876. Is that what your position was in terms of the changes?

Okay, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: We have five minutes for closing remarks. I think you had noted there was an issue you wanted to deal with, and of course we want to hear from the elder.

You have five minutes. I'll let you manage that five minutes.

Mr. Terrance Pelletier: I'll take one minute to say that the FNGA process that was introduced after our processes was causing a lot of confusion. We disagree with the Indian Act, as my colleague said. Why would we want to have input into a change when we're already involved in some change?

It is confusing to our people, and it's my job to un-confuse people. It's very difficult to get to 73 reserves, have them in the cities, and everything, but we are doing that. In Saskatchewan, given the uniqueness of this process, people are confused. Is our process part of the FNGA? What is going on? There is a lot of confusion.

So we're not having input into the FNGA. We already have our own process.

Á (1125)

The Chair: I want to speak only on that, because you may want to respond to my comments. The problem we have is everyone insists on telling us there was no consultation, so it's hard to judge whether there was an attempt at one or none. We don't know how to judge it. That's why I make this comment.

I'll give you an extra 30 seconds because of that.

Mr. Terrance Pelletier: I'm not exactly sure what the question was, but we did have notice that the FNGA was going to be changed. We did have a notice that if you wanted some input into it, you can do it. When I was the chief, one of our council went to Ottawa to sit down...and the handbook they have made. There was, at least from my point of view, some input into some of the legislation but it doesn't go far enough. That's what we're saying here. It doesn't go far enough.

My colleague, Jimmy Myo, is the elder for our processes here.

The Chair: We welcome you and we're anxious to hear from you. Thank you very much for helping us out here.

Mr. Jimmy Myo (Elder, Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations): Thank you.

I'd like to say hello to everybody. Welcome to our beautiful city. It's nice to see you all.

I want to talk a little bit about self-government--what it means to us. Right at the beginning of time, when we were the only people living in this part of the world, we had what we call...not a self-government exactly, but we governed ourselves. We did things our way. But the things we got were natural things. God gave us something to live with, such as buffalo and other animals, land, water, fish. And if we told him at that time through our prayers, “God, you can forget about us now, we want to take self-government”, he would stop all those things. There would be no more buffalo. We'd starve to death. But we didn't. We kept on praying and praying and we lived a peaceful good life all along.

Then we made treaties with the government, and this is what we told the government fellow who came to make a deal with us for our land. We told him what God gave us, what we have in this country. And he agreed that he would try the way to provide what God gave us. We had everything. We had teachers, not the kinds of teachers we have today, but older people to teach our kids how to hunt and how to live their everyday life--the Indian way of life. God gave us law, and that law, if it was used today, with the non-Indian government law, today our people would make their own living the way they were promised at the time of the treaty-making. If that law was included in there, if the agreement was kept, the promises were kept, things would be a lot different, you see, but they were taken away from us. The law was taken away from us. It doesn't exist any more, only amongst ourselves.

If that was to work again.... Today we have our young people in jails--90%, some jails--and our people do not understand both our law and your law. That's why it's easy for them to break.

One of the things that happened was the government promised us schools on our reserves at the time of the treaty-making. But instead of doing that.... We've all heard about these residential schools. That's where they destroyed the Indian people's minds. They took everything away from us that was good to us. They cut our hair, they took our language, they took our pipes, they took our sweetgrass, they took other things that were very important to us. Why? I don't really know why.

This is the reason why we asked the government at that time--the time of the treaty-making--to govern ourselves. We wanted them to teach us how to make a living, to give us those schools. Everything that is taught to the non-Indian people, the Indian people would know these things, would be taught in schools how to make a living. But it didn't happen that way.

Á (1130)

You see, in many areas, all of Saskatchewan pretty near, we weren't allowed to go higher than grade six until after the Second World War. We weren't allowed to have a lawyer representing us if we'd get into trouble until 1951 or 1952. Even in those tough times since after the Second World War we've come a long way towards proving that we can make it on our own if our treaties are provided and if the law--our law and your law--was put together. But we would have to work together, like two people working together.

That was the promise. That is one of the reasons why we disagree with this paper that was made for us. We have to be included in there. We have to have somebody, Indian people, included to make those decisions, because this has been happening for a very long time, ever since the time of the treaty-making. When the government wants to do something for us, they make a piece of paper.

My dad was a chief for about 15 years, 20 years maybe. And Indian Affairs would come there and they'd tell my dad that they were going to have a meeting. They'd bring a piece of paper and tell my dad, “This is what you're going to do. Sign it here.” And that was all. My dad never did disagree, because if he did disagree we wouldn't get help from the government.

We had a lot of good things going for us, such as hunting skills. We don't have that any more. So the reason why I asked my partner here to let me speak is.... Look at us. Let's work together. Take a look at our paper. If we do that, work together, I will guarantee you one thing: that in years to come the Indian people will be making their own living. They won't have to ask for housing. Those jails will be empty, because our law will prevent the young people from getting into trouble.

But if we keep on going the way we're going, the government telling us what to do, there are going to be a lot of problems. You're going to have to increase the welfare payments. You're going to have to build a lot bigger jails.

I'm not trying to get anybody mad. I'm an old man. I just like to say what the Indian people believe.

With that, thank you very much.

Á (1135)

The Chair: I thank you very much.

I mentioned earlier that I cut off the minister twice when he presented to the committee. By respect to you, sir, as an elder, I don't have the courage to cut you off.

I add to this that it was very interesting, and I appreciate your contribution.

Thank you very much, all of you.

And now I invite, from St. John's Anglican Cathedral, Ethel Ahenakew, member of the outreach committee and member of the eco-justice committee of the Anglican Church of Canada, and also Margaret Gruber, chair of the outreach committee. This will be a ten-minute presentation. It will be followed by Robert Camplin.

We must proceed. Order. We're still in session.

Welcome. We ask you to start your presentation now.

Ms. Ethel Ahenakew (Member of the Outreach Committee, Member of the EcoJustice Committee of the Anglican Church of Canada, St. John's Anglican Cathedral): I am a member of the Ahtahkakoop Band. I am a parishioner of St. John's Anglican Church in Saskatoon and a member of the outreach committee there. I have been involved for years with the Anglican Council of Indigenous Peoples prior to being elected to my present position on the eco-justice committee of the Anglican Church of Canada, on which I serve on a subcommittee on Indian issues.

I'm here to speak on my own behalf and for the cathedral outreach committee.

The First Nations Governance Act reads with good intentions of leading towards first nations self-government, but it works against this goal. I will elaborate on five areas where I see this happening.

First is lack of consultation. In the FNGA process--

The Chair: Excuse me one moment.

Please could we keep it quiet in the room in respect to our witnesses?

Thank you very much, and I apologize.

Ms. Ethel Ahenakew: In the FNGA process, the Department of Indian Affairs personnel consulted only about 10,000 out of a total of 800,000 Indians, and this is on that website. That is a little more than one percent. Those consulted raised serious objections to the government's plan and to the ineffective consultation process.

In Ottawa, one person read about the consultation meeting to be held in one place. The place was changed without effective notification and the two persons who went to the meeting had to search for the new location. They were the only two Indians there.

The second point is expanding ministerial authority. A part of the bill appears to be a result of the publicized negative financial situation of a few bands. While I agree with the government that this must be corrected and that it is necessary to protect those who suffer from poor financial management at all levels of government, my opinion and the opinion of those I represent is that it is not appropriate for the government to develop the bill without first consulting a broad base of Indians, nor to add new legal authority for a ministerial intervention over Indians.

The minister may carry out an assessment of a band's financial situation rather than an independent body, leaving the minister with additional control over Indians. The bill entrenches the current Indian Act by acting unilaterally in a way that tears down the rights of first nations.

The third area is prescriptive language and mixed messages. The language of the bill does not define and support mutual cooperation between first nations and the government, which would be the language to use if this bill were on the road to self-government. Instead there are skilfully selected words that cut into our very souls. The language and tone are prescriptive and paternalistic.

After reading the bill I can imagine the government saying to the Indian leaders, “We know what's best for you”, since the language states that the bill can provide bands with more effective tools of governance and prescribes the elements that must be in band development codes.

For example, clause 5 lists ten detailed elements that must be in a band's leadership selection code, some of which are contrary to first nations traditional ways of governance, particularly the insistence on election by majority vote when the Cree way is consensus building.

The bill also leaves a final appeal process for the election results, except for custom bands, in the hands of the Minister of Indian Affairs, which is counter to the purpose of self-government.

The treaties were signed to provide partnerships for the mutual benefit of Indian nations and the government, not as a prescription by one group for another. One of the reasons why our Indian leaders undertook negotiations with the Government of Canada more than a century ago was that your European ancestors had reduced my ancestors to starvation.

Our leaders were intelligent and spiritually strong. This was why they held sacred ceremonies at the time of the signing of the treaties, calling upon our Creator to assist them in negotiations. Our leaders of this day are still those kinds of persons. Indian people do not need or want the government to provide our governance tools. We can develop and are developing them through our Indian leaders to be consistent with our various Indian cultures.

The use of prescriptive language strongly indicates that the government is stating one philosophy, support for self-governance, while actually bringing in stronger control over Indians. This is a mixed message, which will damage first nations relations with Canada. Once again, in the proverbial language of the red man, the government speaks with a forked tongue.

The fourth area is financial stress. Indian Act bands are required to provide detailed codes of band governance, financial management and accountability, recording and safekeeping of records and laws, and law enforcement and consequences for breaking regulations.

This will require a monumental cost to each band at a time when there are significant social needs of first nations that are not being addressed outside or within this bill. Nowhere in the bill does the government suggest approaches by which bands could finance this work.

Á (1140)

The fifth area is the FNGA duplicates a first-nations-led process. The FNGA wastes taxpayers' money, since the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations has been developing a framework to implement the treaties and to legally recognize first nations jurisdiction since 1996. An agreement in principle, phase one, is nearing completion. The FNGA is said to be an interim document that prescribes band fiscal and political accountability details until self-government.

The FSIN treaty governance policy is already looking at these and a more extensive range of issues under first nations leadership. Representatives of Saskatchewan Indian governments under a consultation with Saskatchewan Indians and the Government of Canada have generated the FSIN process. Each band and band member will be regularly consulted to develop the final agreement details.

I spoke earlier about the spiritual strength of our leaders. This strength continues today because they have always relied on elders to lead them. These are the leaders who should be guiding us through the process of developing good governance, not the Government of Canada.

Á (1145)

The Chair: We thank you very much.

Ms. Gruber, perhaps you have some comments. We have two minutes left.

Ms. Margaret Gruber (Chair of the Outreach Committee, St. John's Anglican Cathedral): My understanding is that the committee members might want to ask some questions.

The Chair: I didn't have one occasion when there was a ten-minute presentation when they allowed time. In two minutes I can't do a complete round.

I apologize.

Ms. Margaret Gruber: Okay.

I would like to say that there were several things that became apparent in going through the bill and in looking on the website for these consultations. Ethel spoke for the outreach committee and for all of St. John's Anglican Cathedral, and I also speak for the cathedral, and we both speak for the Anglican Church of Canada. It was involved with the really terrible process of the residential schools with first nations people. The Anglican Church of Canada has undergone a process of apology and it has developed a different kind of process with first nations people, which is a process from the ground up.

It seems to me that when we went through the list of organizations that were consulted in Saskatchewan, only half of the organizations were actually aboriginal peoples, and only two out of the ten tribal councils were consulted. And there were a couple of reports on the website of some of the consultation processes, one by an organization that represented professional Indian women in Saskatchewan. Nowhere was there representation by the Saskatchewan Native Women's Association, which represents all women in Saskatchewan, not just professional women. It also seems that the set-up of the consultations appears--even the set-up of this table.... It's not a consultative process that is from the ground up.

When people come into a consultative process that is from the ground up, it means that everybody comes to the table as an equal party. For example, the way this room is--it's a really small point--there are three sides here of people coming from the Government of Canada and one side for people who are from Saskatchewan, rather than having people coming together at a round table with people mixed together and everybody being of an equal stature.

So when we go through the bill it feels like the language is very prescriptive. It has a top-down sort of a feel to it.

The Chair: I must interrupt. We are at eleven minutes. We have gone beyond our time.

We thank you for your presentation. Everything that is said in the presentations is recorded; it's on record. We appreciate your contribution.

I now invite, as an individual, Robert Camplin, band member of the Saulteaux Band 159. This presentation will also be for ten minutes. We invite you to begin.

Mr. Robert Camplin (Band member of the Saulteaux Band # 159, As Individual): I want to welcome you.

I just want to say that when you see the words “House of Commons”, I want you to know I'm a commoner. It's so good to know we can have a voice in the House of Commons. I want you to have this frame of mind while I'm talking.

I don't come from the bureaucracy of the Indian people, the establishment. I come from the grassroots, the people who are suffering because of what we've seen.

I'm going to be 44 years old in May, and I was a leader of our first nation, Saulteaux, when I was 19 years old. I went for two terms and saw the frustrations of being a leader at a young age. I've always maintained my leadership ability until now. I want you to look at me as a person. If you want to know the truth of what's really going on in these bands in Saskatchewan--I can only talk for Saulteaux and don't want to make generalities here--what we have here is chaos.

I don't know if you get a chance to look at band audits, but on our reserve we were unable to determine, year after year, certain things regarding the financial expenditures of the Saulteaux Band. I have lived this long on Saulteaux and have been a victim of a bureaucracy that's been set up by Indian people. It seems that you have a voice when you belong to the system, but if you don't belong to the system you don't have a voice, and 85% to 90% of the band don't have a voice.

Many of you probably wonder why band members are not voicing their opinions in this very important thing that's happening to us in Canada. Think of the word “segregation”. How would you feel if you were put on the reserve and given a bureaucratic system where you had no opposition parties? Then there was an election, you put people in power, and they could do absolutely whatever they felt like doing.

When Indian Affairs came in they were a little too late. By the time they came in to put in a third-party management system, or whatever remedial system they found necessary to rectify the financial state of the reserve, the damage had been done many times. The band was left with deficits and band members were left on the welfare line.

Today every band member on our reserve gets a guaranteed $97.50 every two weeks, while Indian Affairs continues to fund band support and the reserve. I've see it over and over again. As I said, I'm going to be 44 years old, and I've seen it since I was 19. Chiefs and councils are paying themselves gross amounts income tax-free--and free housing. This is going on.

The magic thing about the First Nations Governance Act is that we need that legal capacity to control our chief and council. Before they come into office they need to realize it will no longer be tolerated if they come into office just to line their pockets. They will be held accountable under the First Nations Governance Act for their actions. If they behave well there's nothing to fear.

You can stack laws up to the sky. Surely you people are human beings. The Minister of Indian Affairs is a human being. He would never put legislation on the table to destroy another people. We must govern ourselves with law. Without law you see what's happening in the international community--strife and war. That will happen here in Canada with first nations if they're not given the responsibility to live by law.

Á (1150)

One of the greatest laws I learned a long time ago is that no matter the colour of somebody's skin, treat that person as I would like to be treated. That is a very important law.

There's nothing to fear in the First Nations Governance Act if you are a lawful citizen, but if you are an unlawful citizen I can see some difficulties.

I followed the process where the Indian affairs minister had kindly sent letters to all the chiefs telling them to come to the table and discuss the plight of their people. Well, let's just see what the Indian affairs minister has. Let's just look at it. He is not telling us to do anything, just to look. What amazes me is they refused to look.

What is it in that act that is so scary that we can't even investigate and take a look, at least?

How many studies have been done in Canada? Jean Chrétien was an Indian affairs minister back in the sixties, I believe, and there was the white paper. That was put down. Then there was another study, the Penner report. Then we have another one, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. Those studies, good as they may have seemed to identify problems, were never brought to the grassroots people to let them look, to ask, what did you find?

No. I just found the Penner report three weeks ago. I went through it, but we haven't even seen any of these other studies.

Again, I'm afraid this process here.... I noticed all the establishment were here, and they've had plenty of time to be questioned and put their opinions forward as to why this is a bad act and why we need to go to self-government.

We are not ready for self-government because we've never had laws. All we had was the Indian Act. Did you know that the majority of Saskatchewan band members, 73 bands, haven't even seen the Indian Act, and it's 120-some years old? What we need the Minister of Indian Affairs to do is push on and bring this First Nations Governance Act to the band members so they can look at it, study it, and prepare.

I always think that the treaties were signed on the basis of benevolence. We did not have a big army here to fight off the Europeans when they came. No. They had superior might and superior education, let's put it that way, when they came. Benevolence is the word I always remember when I think about treaties. The Queen felt sorry for us. This reserve that she put us on was only because the Europeans had to break this land up, and there could be a lot of hurt, and she was putting us in a safe place. I don't know if she ever meant to keep those people segregated in that place and cause the grief we see today. I don't think so. But because of the bureaucratic system that has been created through the Indian Act, the chiefs and councils in the big establishment of bureaucracy want to keep that system because it's lucrative.

I would say this: I could sit here all day and show you the devastation of the financial situation on our reserve. For the first time in the history of our reserve we're putting our band members in court to answer to fraud. But I say that the Indian Act--I have said it before--gave licence to steal. The First Nations Governance Act, which doesn't do away with the Indian Act but transforms it for the kinds of days we are going through now, will take the licence away. The First Nations Governance Act will take away the licence for chiefs and councils to plunder our reserves. And that's what's been going on, plundering.

I thank you. If you have any questions, I'm sure I will answer them.

Á (1155)

The Chair: Thank you very much. The time has elapsed. There will be no questions.

As you were speaking, I was thinking Mr. Camplin should write a book, but you just did, because everything you said is on record, and I'm sure it will be read with much interest. Thank you very much for your contribution.

Now, for a two-minute presentation I invite Mr. James Favel.

Thank you.

Mr. James R. Favel (As Individual): First of all, I want to thank the committee for giving me a few minutes here to make my presentation.

I might give you some of my background. In 1958 I came in by acclamation as chief of the band, and I was one of the first organizers with the Federation of Saskatchewan Indians. I have done a lot of political work for Indian people. I believe I'm an Indian, and I trust my treaty rights.

First of all, I want to remind.... Of course, I shouldn't remind anybody; everybody knows our Treaty 6 supercedes all laws in Canada, supercedes the Canadian Constitution. But what are we doing today? We seem to be begging the government to give us our rights. All the government does is just signal our treaty rights.

Anyway, I don't want to hold up your time too much, but since they are making reference under the new act to that old Indian Act...this one had full dictatorial powers over Indian people. There were 188 sections there. When they revised it, I was there. I was sitting down at that discussion when they reviewed it. The only thing they did was to whittle that down to 125 dictatorial sections. The minister still has the power over us. Where's our freedom? Where's our justice?

Right across Canada, Indian people are crying for justice. You go to court.... I go to court: three months in jail for not having your lights on in daylight.

I'm afraid of what's going to go on. What is the act going to do now? Is it going to be worse than these? Are we going to get justice?

The laws of this country have to change for the Indian people. There are laws in Canada that you can smell a mile away. They're dirty; the dirtiest laws there are in Canada is what Canada is exercising. And as far as being accepting, to beg to have an Indian self-government, I'm not ready for that yet. What they'll do is give us Indian self-government, they'll phase out Indian Affairs, and then it will come out of the municipality and maybe get worse. So I don't know....

Â (1200)

The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation.

Mr. James Favel: I have a lot of documents that I would have liked to present. I have confidential documents of what the department said.

What the government is saying today is that it will give these Indian people the right to self-government. Then they'll phase out Indian Affairs--

The Chair: Thank you very much, sir. We are up to three and a half minutes.

Your microphone is not on, sir. It's not being recorded. The microphone has been cut off.

Would somebody tell him? Sir, could you explain to him that if he has documents that he wishes to leave, we will make sure every member gets them? Thank you very much.

The final presenter, for two minutes, is Councillor Bryan Tootoosis.

Mr. Bryan Tootoosis (As Individual): I've been a councillor since 1989, and we welcome you to our area here, Cree country.

In reviewing your document, there's a lot of mention about trying to work in partnership with Indian Affairs.

A lot of communities of first nations like ours have been doing membership codes. There's a lot of frustration when you guys talk about acts, codes, bylaws, policy, and regulation. We want to do our own work.

Listening to a veteran, listening to an elder, listening to other presenters, we have a lot of internal problems in our area here in North Battleford, yet we're communities that make this society work here. We involve ourselves in business. We involve ourselves in global participation in other world events that are going on here.

If we're going to be allowed to make things work, we need to have equality. We can't have two-tier systems. Under the act it says 18 years and all that kind of thing. The Supreme Court recognizes the Poundmaker Cree Nation under band custom. Voting matters are for those 21 and up.

We need to do our own homework here. In two minutes I really don't know what I can say that would cover mobility rights. We have the BTC, the Battleford Tribal Council, here. We have an entity that's not treaty-based. As a community of first nations people with our own membership, we need to decide how we structure ourselves.

We know the corporate world. We know the government. We know the parliamentary act is going to supercede everything here.

We have our language. What's inanimate to you guys is animate to us. We have to understand that we're a group of people who have been here a very long time and we're not going to go anywhere.

People continue to take matters to court. We're getting a little tired of that. We want to be able to have decision-making authority within our own communities to come up and document everything.

You guys talk about constitutions. Are constitutions the answer? Are acts the answer when Indian Affairs can come to our community tomorrow morning and say “Look, we made a departmental policy decision last week. Environment is going to be dealt with this way.” You have Kyoto on this side. We're trying to do businesses over here. We're trying to employ our people. What do we do?

Â (1205)

The Chair: That's very interesting, but I must interrupt. We're at three minutes. But if you have any documents--

Mr. Bryan Tootoosis: Individuals come here to air something.

The Chair: Your time is up, sir.

This is the first committee I've been on that has opened the floor to any individuals for spontaneous presentations. I think we're creating more problems by having this. I hope we won't need to end this practice. I thought we had concluded, but we have another.

We thank you very much for your presentations. If you wish to leave documents they will be printed and shared with everyone.

I welcome Mr. Bill Swimmer to make a two- to three-minute presentation.

Mr. Bill Swimmer (As Individual): Good afternoon.

I've been sitting here listening to the presentations. One thing is perfectly clear: Bill C-7 applies to the bands and not to the Department of Indian Affairs. It seems to me that the Department of Indian Affairs should also be accountable for the money they give to the bands. Once they do, they seem to wash their hands of the taxpayers' money.

There are two things you have to understand. You have heard elders and other people talking about treaties. Let's stick with treaties. What we're dealing with is the creation of status Indians by the Indian Act. They're not treaty people, but you have them so darned confused that they think they are. Treaty people are descendants of the treaty signers. Status Indians are a creation of the Indian Act. Then the Indian Act slaps all these status Indians onto the treaty lands and crosses the treaty people.

There's not one Treaty 6 chief and council here in western Canada. They're all status Indians. The Federation of Saskatchewan Indians is a status group. They shouldn't be talking about treaties, and you shouldn't even be allowing them to talk about treaties.

If you're really responsible, you would stand up and say “We did wrong. We created the status Indians, and we forgot about the treaties.” The reason you are here is because of these treaties. But you seem to dump money and everything onto these status Indians. They're so darned confused that they wake up in the morning and say “I'm a treaty Indian, so I'll talk about treaties”.

There's nothing wrong with having this part for them.

Â (1210)

The Chair: You're at two minutes and ten seconds. I'll give you another 40 seconds.

Mr. Bill Swimmer: There's nothing wrong with that bill. Everything is perfectly clear there.

The Department of Indian Affairs and the status chiefs and councils should be accountable to the Canadian taxpayers. Everything is being dumped on the taxpayers.

I'm a taxpayer. I have lived in urban centres for a hell of a long time. I have two degrees.

The Chair: Thank you very much. That was very interesting.

This concludes our session.

The meeting is adjourned.