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

Thursday, March 20, 2003

0805

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

The Chair

Grand Chief Charles Fox (Ontario Regional Chief, Chiefs of Ontario)

The Chair

Mr. Charles Fox

0810

0815

0820

The Chair

Chief Peter Quill (Chiefs of Ontario)

0825

The Chair

Mr. Peter Quill

The Chair

0830

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

Mr. Charles Fox

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Charles Fox

0835

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

Mr. Charles Fox

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Charles Fox

0840

The Chair

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

Mr. Charles Fox

The Chair

Mr. Charles Fox

0845

Grand Chief Christopher McCormick (Chiefs of Ontario)

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Charles Fox

The Chair

Mr. Charles Fox

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Charles Fox

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Charles Fox

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Charles Fox

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

0850

Mr. Charles Fox

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.)

0855

Mr. Charles Fox

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Charles Fox

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.)

0900

Mr. Charles Fox

Ms. Anita Neville

Mr. Charles Fox

The Chair

Mr. Charles Fox

The Chair

0905

Grand Chief Leon Jourdain (Grand Council Treaty No. 3)

The Chair

Grand Chief Leon Jourdain

0910

0915

0920

0925

0930

0935

0940

The Chair

Grand Chief Leon Jourdain

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Grand Chief Leon Jourdain

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Grand Chief Leon Jourdain

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

0945

Grand Chief Leon Jourdain

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Grand Chief Leon Jourdain

0950

The Chair

Mr. Stan Dromisky

Grand Chief Leon Jourdain

Mr. Stan Dromisky

Grand Chief Leon Jourdain

Mr. Stan Dromisky

Grand Chief Leon Jourdain

Mr. Stan Dromisky

0955

Grand Chief Leon Jourdain

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Grand Chief Leon Jourdain

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Grand Chief Leon Jourdain

1000

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Grand Chief Leon Jourdain

The Chair

Grand Chief Leon Jourdain

1005

The Chair

Grand Chief Leon Jourdain

The Chair

Mr. Bentley Cheechoo (Tribal Chair, Matawa First Nations)

The Chair

Bentley Cheechoo

The Chair

Bentley Cheechoo

Mr. Stanley Bois (Councillor, Eabametoong First Nation, Matawa First Nations)

Chief Roger Oshkineegish (Nibinamik First Nation, Matawa First Nations)

Chief Gordon Wabasse (Webequie First Nation, Matawa First Nations)

Chief Arthur Moore (Constance Lake First Nation, Matawa First Nations)

1010

Chief Veronica Waboose (Long Lake #58 First Nation, Matawa First Nations)

Chief Sonny Gagnon (Aroland First Nation, Matawa First Nations)

Bentley Cheechoo

1015

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

1020

Bentley Cheechoo

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Bentley Cheechoo

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Bentley Cheechoo

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Bentley Cheechoo

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Bentley Cheechoo

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

1025

Bentley Cheechoo

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Stan Dromisky

1030

The Chair

Mr. Stan Dromisky

Bentley Cheechoo

Mr. Stan Dromisky

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Bentley Cheechoo

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Bentley Cheechoo

Mr. Charles Hubbard

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Bentley Cheechoo

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Bentley Cheechoo

1035

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Bentley Cheechoo

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Bentley Cheechoo

Mr. Pat Martin

Bentley Cheechoo

1040

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Bentley Cheechoo

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Bentley Cheechoo

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Bentley Cheechoo

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Bentley Cheechoo

1045

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Bentley Cheechoo

The Chair

Ms. Anita Neville

Bentley Cheechoo

1050

The Chair

Bentley Cheechoo

The Chair

1055

Grand Chief Stan Beardy (Nishnawbe Aski Nation)

1100

1105

1110

The Chair

Grand Chief Stan Beardy

1115

The Chair

Grand Chief Stan Beardy

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Grand Chief Stan Beardy

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Grand Chief Stan Beardy

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

1120

Grand Chief Stan Beardy

Ms. Alanna McKenzie (NAN-Canada Bilateral Protocol Coordinator, Nishnawbe Aski Nation)

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Grand Chief Stan Beardy

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Grand Chief Stan Beardy

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

1125

Grand Chief Stan Beardy

Ms. Grace Teskey (Nishnawbe Aski Nation)

The Chair

Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.)

1130

Grand Chief Stan Beardy

Mr. John Godfrey

Grand Chief Stan Beardy

Mr. John Godfrey

Grand Chief Stan Beardy

1135

Mr. John Godfrey

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Grand Chief Stan Beardy

Mr. Pat Martin

Grand Chief Stan Beardy

Mr. Pat Martin

1140

The Chair

Ms. Anita Neville

Grand Chief Stan Beardy

Ms. Anita Neville

Grand Chief Stan Beardy

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Alanna McKenzie

Mr. Pat Martin

Alanna McKenzie

1145

Mr. Pat Martin

Grand Chief Stan Beardy

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

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

Grand Chief Stan Beardy

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell

Grand Chief Stan Beardy

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell

The Chair

Grand Chief Stan Beardy

1150

The Chair

Mr. Tom Wassaykeesic (As Individual)

1155

1200

The Chair

1205

Mr. Tom Wassaykeesic

The Chair

Geri Gray (As Individual)

The Chair

Chief Wilfred King (Gull Bay First Nation, As Individual)

The Chair

Chief Wilfred King

The Chair

Chief Wilfred King

1210

The Chair

Chief Wilfred King

The Chair

Chief Theron McCrady (Poplar Point Ojibways First Nation, As Individual)

1215

The Chair

Chief Theron McCrady

The Chair

Chief Theron McCrady

The Chair

Chief Paul Gladu (Sand Point First Nation, As Individual)

1220

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources

NUMBER 046

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Thursday, March 20, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¾ (0805)

[English]

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

We will have to suspend proceedings, because we cannot start without a member of the opposition. So I have to apologize to our guests. We have a time slot, and we will allow the full time of your presentation, though. We'll suspend proceedings until we have a member.

¾ (0803)

¾ (0805)

The Chair: We will resume proceedings.

We are pleased to welcome the Chiefs of Ontario, with Charles Fox, the Ontario regional chief.

I will ask you to introduce your colleagues. We will spend one hour together. We invite you to make your presentation, and if you allow time for questions, we would appreciate that.

Please proceed.

Grand Chief Charles Fox (Ontario Regional Chief, Chiefs of Ontario): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning.

I have with me Chief Peter Quill, from Pikangikum First Nation, who will also be making a brief statement when I'm done; Mike Sherry, who is legal counsel with the Chiefs of Ontario; and Grand Chief McCormick, from the Association of Iroquois and Allied Indians.

I want to apologize to the French-speaking delegation. We don't have a copy in French, with respect to our presentation. We didn't have the resources to translate that.

The Chair: We do. We will look after that.

Mr. Charles Fox: Thank you.

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

I want to begin by thanking our Creator for bringing us together today in this forum, for giving us the opportunity to talk to each other.

I also want to acknowledge our Creator to be with those people overseas who are in crisis currently. We all know what has transpired overnight, and certainly I think the issue of the safety and well-being of many individuals and nations is uppermost in our minds.

The traditional territories of the Fort William Ojibway First Nation is the land that we are on, and I want to pay tribute to that. I want to acknowledge that. Certainly I want to thank the first nations people, the Ojibway people of Fort William First Nation.

I am the Ontario regional chief. This position is subject to election by the 134 Ontario first nations every three years. The status Indian population of Ontario is the largest of any province. The Ontario regional chief is a member of the Political Confederacy, which is the Ontario first nations executive body, composed of grand chiefs and other first nation leaders. In addition, I sit on the executive of the Assembly of First Nations.

The Ontario chiefs gather every year at the all-Ontario chiefs conference in one of the communities. As well, there are special assemblies from time to time to deal with pressing issues. The chiefs pass resolutions that dictate political position-taking.

The basic position of the Chiefs of Ontario is that Bill C-7, in its entirety, is unacceptable. Tinkering amendments are not possible, and the Chiefs of Ontario will not discuss them.

If the bill is passed, there will be permanent long-term damage to the bilateral relationship between first nations and Canada. The next federal government will have to deal with the negative consequences.

The bill should be scrapped immediately. Instead, there should be a discussion between first nations and the federal government on concrete measures that are mutually agreeable, based on the Penner report and the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples.

An intriguing possibility would be to refer the bill to the Supreme Court of Canada for constitutional review. In the meantime, first nations and Canada could develop a work plan for bilateral discussion.

Bill C-7 is inconsistent with the inherent right to self-government as recognized by subsection 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982. Therefore, the bill is unconstitutional.

The inherent right to self-government is a full box, not an empty one. That is to say, first nation governments have jurisdiction and authority independent of the federal and provincial governments. That jurisdiction must include basic internal elements of government, such as leadership selection, government organization, financial administration, and local law-making.

It is precisely through these most intimate aspects of local government that Bill C-7 runs amok. It tells first nations how to select leaders, run local government, report financially, and pass local laws. The bill treats first nations as mere financial federal municipalities.

There are many examples in the bill of the attack on the inherent right. First, there is the mechanism of the default rules--elections, government administration, and financial administration--under clause 32. The rules will be imposed after two years on first nations that choose not to develop codes.

¾ (0810)

Second, there is the very nature of the topic areas covered by the codes, or rules, and other parts of the bill--that is, local government selection, local government administration, local financial administration, and local law-making. This is the very stuff of local first nations government. Bill C-7 sends the message that the federal government can unilaterally interfere in this most intimate circle of first nations governments.

Third, there is the leadership selection code. Clause 5 of the bill and its 10 paragraphs tell first nations exactly what election codes must contain.

Fourth, there is the government administration code. Clause 6 has no less than 13 paragraphs that tell first nations exactly what government administration codes must contain.

Fifth, there is the financial administration code. Clause 7 has 8 paragraphs dictating how first nations are to organize local financial administration.

Sixth, there is a series of mandatory financial rules in clauses 8 to 10 that apply immediately and are not subject to local code-making. This is the iron fist of Indian and Northern Affairs of Canada.

By clause 10, the INAC minister acquires a new status, a new statute-based power to audit without cause and impose undefined remedies without due process. It is the kind of odious provision that would have been removed from the Indian Act in 1951.

Seventh, clause 11 of the bill requires a first nation to pass a local law establishing an appeal or redress process. There is no argument of the value of reasonable dispute resolution mechanisms at the first nation level. The problem here is the way Canada is proceeding. A government with an inherent authority cannot be told by another government to pass a certain kind of law.

Clause 16 of the bill purports to confirm legal capacity of first nations governments. Apparently the federal government believes it can wave a magic wand over first nations governments and declare them to have legal capacity, like corporations and municipalities.

Clauses 16, 17, and 18 of the bill outline various areas for law-making by first nations. It is not consistent with the inherent right for Canada to unilaterally tell first nations in which areas they can pass laws.

Note that the combined effect of clauses 16 to 18 of Bill C-7 and parts of Bill C-19 is to create two tiers of municipal laws for first nations. Laws under Bill C-7 can be passed without federal consent. Financial laws under Bill C-19 are all subject to approval by federally appointed boards and commissions.

Clause 10 of Bill C-7 imposes rigid rules on first nations in terms of the local and national registration of local laws.

There are other provisions of the bill that are problematic. These are just the highlights. It is not possible to go into each problem area and tinker. The principle of the bill is wrong and unconstitutional. It is based on the premise that the inherent right to self-government has no effect on federal law-making. The assault on the integrity of first nations is unprecedented since the white paper of 1969.

The Supreme Court has held in cases like Sparrow that where there is a proposed government measure likely to prejudice a section 35 right, the Canadian government is under a constitutional obligation in a reasonable way to consult with the affected first nation. Bill C-7 is a massive frontal attack on the inherent right. At the very least, the federal government is under an extremely high duty to consult first nations. Bill C-7's attack on the inherent right is so fundamental that it may not even be appropriate to talk in terms of consultation, even consultation of the highest order.

The Supreme Court in Delgamuukw suggested that first nations consent may be required in undefined special circumstances. Bill C-7 may be the kind of current situation contemplated by Delgamuukw.

The position of the Chiefs of Ontario is that first nation consent is required as a precondition to the passage of Bill C-7. That consent has not been obtained. However, it is clear that the process engineered by Indian and Northern Affairs Canada does not even meet the high consultation standard.

INAC put together a package of Indian Act measures without first nations involvement in late 2000 and early 2001. The package was cleared through cabinet before any announcement was made to first nations. It was obvious in the very beginning, in March 2001, that INAC had a preconceived package that it was intent on pushing through, regardless of first nations input.

¾ (0815)

First nations realized that the INAC consultation strategy was bogus. As a result, participation has been extremely limited. INAC resorted to parlour tricks to create the appearance of some sort of engagement. It solicited hits on its website from unknown sources. It held consultation meetings with its own employees. It dialogued with client organizations that do not represent first nations.

It is interesting to note what happened in Saskatchewan. First nations there, as facilitated by the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations, decided to participate in the early stages of the federal consultation process. They decided to kick the tires, so to speak, in spite of all the warning signals. After looking closely at the federal package, they rejected it.

That result speaks volumes. INAC attempted to manipulate the Assembly of First Nations after demoralizing the organization with massive and unwarranted budget cuts. INAC proposed work plans on different topics. It was obvious to any sensible person that the work plans were a cover for acceptance of the INAC package. The chiefs overwhelmingly rejected the governance work plan in December 2001. They recognized it for what it was--a poison quill.

The INAC consultation record has been blackened by McCarthy-type tactics. Organizations like the AFN and the Chiefs of Ontario that are not onside have been put on the blacklist. Their funding has been delayed and/or cut. Prominent first nation leaders have been attacked in the media. The current Minister of Indian Affairs has stopped going to provincial and national first nation meetings where he knows the group is opposed to the bill.

The aim appears to be to stifle democratic debate. Before the bill reached its present form, INAC hand-picked and stage-managed a committee to look at the shape of a legislative package. This became known as the JMAC committee. The brief JMAC process did not in any way alter the preconceived nature of the federal legislative package.

Bill C-7 is now in standing committee. Again, it is obvious to first nations that the federal government is merely going through the motions. The government approach does not respect the integrity of the parliamentary committee process.

The federal government has spent a lot of money pushing the bill even though the majority of first nations are fundamentally opposed. This money would have been better spent on a few new schools.

The result, not surprisingly, is poisonous. Relations between first nations and Canada are at an all-time low. Passage of this bill will be morally equivalent to the theft of reserve land and the residential school disaster. The legacy of the current federal government will be the unilateral imposition of a municipal-style regime, wholly inconsistent with the inherent right.

The legacy will be poisonous for years to come. The bill will be taken to court and there will be years of acrimonious and expensive litigation. Most first nations will resist the implementation of the bill passively or actively. It will be difficult for the parties to work on other positive projects. The bullying tactics of INAC have bought us to the brink of disaster. The sensible thing to do now is to pull back.

There is no emergency that requires the passage of this noxious bill. As an historic act of good faith, the bill should be withdrawn or at the very least deferred. Instead, there should be a new commitment by both parties to sit down and work things out.

There should be open-ended discussions on the inherent right and implementation of treaties. A bilateral discussion process will be much cheaper than the likely implementation cost of Bill C-7, which INAC has already pegged at about $100 million for the mid-term.

As in the case of the firearms legislation, the actual cost is likely to balloon. Discussions can take time. They can be frustrating. That is true. However, they are immeasurably preferable to the neanderthal approach of Bill C-7. The subtext of Bill C-7 is that the federal government is fed up with talking with first nations, has lost its patience, and is intent on laying down the law. This one-sided venting may feel good for a little bit, at least for Canada. However, the long-term damage to the bilateral relationship will be incalculable.

The proposed First Nations Governance Act is nothing more or less than a regime change. While the Government of Canada refuses to participate in Iraq, it is completely willing to do so in its own country. As this government has made it clear--and the Prime Minister--that it is opposed to a regime change anywhere in the world, why in Canada?

Thank you.

¾ (0820)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I understand Peter Quill will have a presentation. Please proceed.

Chief Peter Quill (Chiefs of Ontario): Thank you. Meegwetch.

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

I just want to say I'm very thankful that I am able to be here this morning. I was not part of the process but I asked for a few minutes to make my presentation here.

I'm from Pikangikum. I was elected last fall under the band custom. As you're probably aware, the custom has gone through a situation where no other first nation can take it, as it is right now. Here is my presentation.

The Government of Canada tabled an amendment to the Indian Act, called Bill C-7, An Act respecting leadership selection, administration and accountability of Indian bands, and to make related amendments to other Acts. The Minister of Indian Affairs talks a lot about the potential of the First Nations Governance Act to strengthen the accountability of first nations. It is in the title to propose legislation.

The preamble of the legislation goes further. It states the following:

Whereas representative democracy, including regular elections by secret ballot, and transparency and accountability are broadly held Canadian values;

Transparency and accountability--these are important words. No first nation would disagree with them. But there is a problem with the legislation. It is only about the leadership selection, and administration and accountability of first nations, Indian bands.

This is a crucial problem for Pikangikum people. It is a crucial problem for us because the First Nations Governance Act will change nothing but the extent to which the Department of Indian Affairs and the minister are able to control our lives.

It is a crucial problem because of what the department and the minister have actually done to us. On November 17, 2000, the Department of Indian Affairs wrote to us saying that they intended to take control of our finances. We were in a clear audit, in a surplus position. This is why we could not accept the decision of the Department of Indian Affairs.

In April 2001, we went to the court to seek an order for our funding that was being withheld from us. In May 2001, the Minister of Indian Affairs imposed an Indian agent on us. He answered under an agency agreement with this A.D. Morrison and Associates Ltd. On November 29, 2002, the Federal Court of Canada quashed the decision, dismissed the decision, of the minister.

To this day, the minister has not reversed his decision to impose A.D. Morrison on us. We have been given no notice of action that has been taken against us before and after the court decision. We have been given no opportunity to comment. We have simply been informed by the INAC of their decisions--decisions that have a crucial impact on our lives.

¾ (0825)

What does the First Nations Governance Act say about this? How can we get a fair treatment from the minister or the Department of Indian Affairs through the current Indian Act or the proposed First Nations Governance Act? We cannot get fair treatment in the existing Indian Act, nor will the proposed legislation provide for a fair treatment of transparency and accountability for us from the Minister of Indian Affairs and his department.

There is no other legislation in Canada that we know of like this. Is this fair? Is this where Canada and first nations relations should be going in the 21st century?

Look further at the proposed First Nations Governance Act. Here is what clause 10--ministerial assessment--says:

(3) The Minister may carry out an assessment of a band's financial position and, if the Minister considers it necessary, require that remedial measures be taken when any of the following circumstances become known to the Minister:

(a) a deterioration of the band's financial health that compromises the delivery of essential programs and services;

(b) the failure to make financial statements publicly available within the period specified in subsection 9(3); or

Read these provisions carefully. Who gets to decide what a “deterioration of the band's financial health that compromises the delivery of essential programs and services” means?

At the Pikangikum we have asked this before. Without the clear standards in the proposed legislation, where are the clear thresholds? Where is the procedure of fairness affirmed in this proposed legislation? How can I respond to any decision made about us? How could this proposed legislation prevent what has happened to us?

If you read these clauses carefully, it is clear that we are to remain wards of the state. How can this promote our healing? How can this promote our culture's survival? How can it promote our economic well-being and self-sufficiency?

Our position at Pikangikum is clear. Accountability and transparency are a two-way street in Government of Canada-first nations relations. When we have a clear audit and we are in a surplus fiscal position and, in spite of this, the Canadian agent is imposed on us, we have to call the minister and his department to account.

This is a matter of fundamental fairness. At Pikangikum, we will do it no matter what the short-term cost to us. We must do it if we are to have a positive long-term future on this land that is called Canada. This is why we have gone back to the courts.

Members of the standing committee, with this statement, Pikangikum is including our latest court documents. Read them carefully. Consider what they mean in terms of the proposed First Nations Governance Act. Also consider what it means when a minister of the Crown tells the press that the order of the Federal Court of Canada is just a legal term.

How does the proposed First Nations Governance Act deal with the accountability of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Parliament to first nations? We need this explained to us. But we need more than this. We are asking the committee to have the courage to propose in its report a relationship between first nations and the Government of Canada that is based upon mutual respect.

We ask you to have the courage to spell out the relationship of cooperation. We are the first peoples of this country. On behalf of the people of my first nation, I ask you as strongly as I possibly can, let us finally get our relationship right.

Meegwetch.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Peter Quill: I didn't make any copies, so we'll get them copied.

The Chair: The clerk will pick it up, and everything you leave with the clerk will be translated and distributed to all members. Everything that is said here today is recorded. As you speak, it's being typed in Ottawa. So you're not just speaking to this committee. Everything you do is on record.

At the end of our session--or during, if we have time--anyone in the room wishing to make a spontaneous presentation of two minutes, anyone who has not presented or is not scheduled to present, is welcome to present. You need only register at the table outside.

So are there others?

Thank you very much. We will proceed to five-minute rounds.

Mr. Vellacott.

¾ (0830)

Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, gentlemen, for being here this morning.

In the eighties, there was a lot of talk of dismantling the Indian Act and moving to self-government. I think a lot of people agreed with that and thought it was a good thing. The minister states that this is a transitional kind of thing to the end of self-government. I guess my first question is, do you buy this?

My second question is to Charles, who will have the global span of Ontario in mind. How far along are most of the bands to self-government? With all of the problems with the Indian Act, do you want to stay with the act for the foreseeable future, for ten years or fifteen years, or until such time as you get self-government?

Then I have one other question, but let's deal with these first.

Mr. Charles Fox: Thank you.

With respect to dismantling the Indian Act, we don't have any problems with looking at the Indian Act. I believe that the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples looked at that particular piece of legislation and made recommendations on it. One of them definitely was not to tinker with it. I believe what we are going through here is actual tinkering.

I was looking at clauses 73 and 74 of the act. If you want to engage us in looking at putting the Indian Act aside, either rewriting the act in its entirety or maybe keeping acceptable pieces of the act and throwing out the rest that is unacceptable, we're willing to sit down to look at that particular process.

In terms of where various first nations are with respect to self-government negotiations, the problematic area with self-government negotiations is that the federal government has a very limited self-government policy. Basically, you are caught in a box with a municipal-style type of regime, whose restrictions and guidelines are the basis for the department's negotiations. In the federal negotiations, there is no flexibility to move beyond this, which is why the self-government negotiations fail to materialize at lot of times with any really conclusive self-government arrangements.

Now, if the federal negotiation process were to look at circumstances where you begin to think and work outside the box, then I think you'd have a lot more self-government arrangement agreements reached.

One of the problematic areas we had in the Nishnawbe-Aski Nation when I was grand chief was the ability to access land and resources off reserve. The self-government negotiation process does not contain this element. So how do we move beyond this? How do we rise to the challenge of accommodating the necessity of first nations being self-sustaining, of their having access to those resources so that the nations can generate their economies and their governments?

In summary, we are prepared to look at the Indian Act. We would like to tackle it, but we need to have a joint government-to-government partnership approach to this, not one that is unilaterally imposed.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I understand that in certain parts of the country...in my home province of Saskatchewan, for example, they are possibly signing some kind of a preliminary agreement with bands or first nation communities across the province, even within this spring. So they are actually fairly advanced along the route.

Are there any bands with self-government in Ontario? If the government were reasonable, are any bands optimistic that they might have self-government within the next three or four years?

Mr. Charles Fox: We have four provincial-territorial organizations in Ontario: the Nishnawbe-Aski Nation to the north; the Grand Council Treaty No. 3 to the west; the Anishinabek Nation in the middle; and the Association of Iroquois and Allied Indians. And you have a number of independents.

In the past, I believe there were negotiations on self-government with individual first nations, but you also had the provincial-territorial organizations negotiating their own agreements. I'm not in any position to report or comment on the status of these negotiations, because each of the provincial-territorial organizations and individual communities deal with these self-government negotiations themselves.

¾ (0835)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to start with your comments about the consultation process. You dedicated part of your brief to that. The very first witness to this standing committee was the minister. In his opening remarks he said this bill has been written by over 10,000 first nations people who worked in partnership and good faith with my government. Everywhere we go we've been hearing that what happened didn't constitute true consultation by any legal definition. Consultation must include some accommodation. Consultation doesn't mean an information session about what we're going to do to you, because there is no exchange.

Could you speak to that? Are you satisfied? Would you say that people had a role in the crafting of this document?

Mr. Charles Fox: Honestly, I can't say that we were involved. Setting up an Internet site for hits does not constitute consultation, from our perspective. I come from the Nishnawbe Aski Nation. We don't have any computers in our part of the country. I think that in Ontario two hearings were held with two first nation communities out of 134. Where do the other 132 first nations fit within that consultation process? We did a further breakdown in terms of the urban off-reserve consultation process, and the number of first nations people who were actually consulted was very low. Nationally, about 10,000 people were consulted. How many of them were hits on the Internet?

Certainly we would like to look at the numbers. When you look at the census that was just recently completed, you're talking about one million first nations people in this country. So you're saying that 1% were consulted either through the Internet or by virtue of off-reserve consultation processes. Is that acceptable to us? I don't think so. Standards have been set with Sparrow and Delgamuukw. By virtue of that Supreme Court case law, where you propose to introduce legislation or policy, you have to consult adequately with first nations. We say to ourselves, if less than 1% is adequate consultation, then I think we have a problem. That's why we say that when this bill comes into existence, you will be faced with court challenges.

Mr. Pat Martin: The point has been made that the imposition of codes of governance and rules by one hierarchy on another people actually undermines the whole idea of self-governance. Surely an aspect of self-governance is the freedom to design governing institutions that suit the people they represent. It's a myth that this bill is about a step to self-governance when it actually flies in the face of the very nature of self-governance.

That's one point that has been made. Can you speak to that?

Mr. Charles Fox: From our perspective, the concepts that are contained in the bill are dangerous in the sense that you're beginning to remove our understanding of Indian government, if I can use that terminology, although I don't like to. The chief and council is the highest form of government from our side. They are duly elected by the people. Whether we like it or not, those particular regimes do have their problematic areas. But in a lot of instances, if given the proper tools in terms of their own due processes, they do resolve those issues.

What is contained in the bill is legal status and legal capacity. You're talking about incorporating chiefs and councils now. That's a slap in the face to us. It's similar to incorporating the parliaments in this country. Let's make the Prime Minister the president of the board of Canada.

¾ (0840)

The Chair: Well, we're over the five minutes and we're off subject, so we'll move on to Mr. Dromisky for five minutes.

Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to see the turnout we have this morning.

I'd like to clarify something, because there were certain implications in Grand Chief Fox's presentation that might mislead some of the people who are witnessing here.

This is not a committee of the government. This is not Jean Chrétien's committee. This is not a committee of the Minister of Indian Affairs. This is a committee of the House of Commons. Peter Milliken is the Speaker of the House of Commons. This is his committee.

The bill is there. The committee is to pick up and learn as much as they possibly can, to search for the truth. That is exactly what we have been trying to do, and we're picking up a lot of information.

If you have been following, you'll know this committee has spent a great number of hours. We've gone already two and a half weeks, traveling to many cities. We've heard hundreds of presentations by a great number of people, but the majority of them have been chiefs. We have heard from some people of the various bands.

Now, there are certain trends emerging in the presentations. There are conflicts. A lot of the chiefs are saying everything is hunky-dory now, and I know that is not true. Everybody is different. Everybody has different interpretations of the various clauses within the bill. Everybody knows that to work with the Indian Act to get things done is a very troublesome route. It's very difficult, with a lot of hazards on the way. It's not easy to work with.

What I'm trying to say is we have to be as open and as honest as we possibly can for this committee to do a credible job. All right?

I'm not attacking you. I'm looking at statistics. But you talked about 132 reserves in Ontario that did not take part in the consultative process. Only two did. Why, is the question that comes into my mind. Why only two? That is not logical.

There has to be a rationale for it. There has to be a reason 132 stayed away. We found some of the reasons in western Canada. We found out that leadership said to certain chiefs in certain areas, stay away. Don't share the information. Don't pass out the notices that there are going to be meetings, and anybody who wants to meet with this committee, or with the minister's committees, or with whoever is doing the consulting for the minister; don't do it.

In other words, there have been obstacles, and what we want to know is why. Can you give me an answer to why 132 chiefs did not share the information, did not respond? I know some of the chiefs. We have a lot of brilliant chiefs in the province of Ontario--well educated. I taught some of them. I can't understand why they did not grab this opportunity to contribute in this whole process.

Mr. Charles Fox: Thank you. Maybe I'll continue with the question from Mr. Martin, because it carries over to your question.

The Chair: You have a minute and a half to do it.

Mr. Charles Fox: Yes.

On the issue of legal status, legal capacity, you're talking about removing governmental status of first nations governments--duly elected by the people within the community. You're talking about the creation of boards of directors and incorporation. You're removing the fiduciary, legal obligation the federal government has.

Right now, I can take the Government of Canada to task for my issues, treaty right or otherwise. By virtue of this bill, the implication is that you're passing that fiduciary off to the board, transferring that obligation to the board; therefore, I cannot take the Government of Canada to task anymore on issues that may affect my treaty rights. So I have a real problem with that.

When I look at the proposed bill, that's one of the more dangerous elements I see. Never mind the other areas, where it begins to impose on my inherent right to govern my community or run my community. It tells me how to do elections. It tells me how to be accountable, through transparency or otherwise.

We're practising a lot of that as it is now, anyway. So why legislate it? You don't need this legislation.

¾ (0845)

Grand Chief Christopher McCormick (Chiefs of Ontario): If I could, Stan, I'd like to respond.

I believe this committee had several applications from first nations communities to have these hearings in communities. That was put to you, and I don't understand why none of them were accepted.

Part of the problem here is this. You're asking why people aren't coming. It costs money to come here out of Fort Hope for the individual person. The reason the chiefs are coming is that the council designates them to come and make presentations on their behalf. They don't come out here and say things they don't have direction from the community to say, because when they got back they'd be pulled out of office.

The Chair: Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Dromisky.

A four-minute round, Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: In respect to some comments just made--I think Charles commented here--if there was a non-derogation clause in here, would that provide the reassurance to say, well, this isn't all about taking away inherent right, and so on? Would that make a difference? It may not mitigate in any significant way, but would that make a difference for you?

Mr. Charles Fox: In relation to a non-derogation clause, when we look at the bill in its entirety, from our perspective, our position is to withdraw the bill totally. We're not even interested in a non-derogation clause.

Let's sit down and chart a course in terms of where we want to go. If we're going to look at the changing relationship and at the Indian Act in its entirety, then let's sit down and do that. Let's not tinker with it.

The Chair: We don't have that option as a committee, and you know that.

Mr. Charles Fox: Yes.

The Chair: So you know the process. We have a job to do, and we're going to try to do it the best way we can. But we don't have that option.

Maurice.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I guess my other question was--because we can't really talk about the bill a whole lot directly, then--in terms of consultation with your people or information sharing, in terms of what people, band members, had on it, was there stuff that came via the chiefs and councils, or was it just stuff that came from the department? Did you have some attempt at a consultation with peoples represented across Ontario?

Mr. Charles Fox: We used information that was made available to us through the departmental process. We looked at the proposed bill. We looked at the consultation process. We did impact analysis, and we shared that with the communities.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: So then you went out at some points--or at least some of the bands did, I gather--and had some meetings, or maybe a quarterly meeting was coming up anyhow, or something. So they had those kinds of meetings that said, this is what our take on the bill is, and got a little bit of comment back, that type of thing. Was that done in some fair degree in the province here?

Mr. Charles Fox: At our level, we had chiefs meetings to deal with the proposed bill, to look at the process, to look at the consultation process, and from there, I believe it was up to each individual first nation in terms of the approach they took within their respective communities.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Do you have any sense of what form it took, if it did take any such form, or was it just by word of mouth, that you talked to other chiefs and so on? Did some do something, and others said, no, we really understand this pretty much as clearly as we need to, so there's not a lot of point to it?

Mr. Charles Fox: We don't have any statistics on that.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Okay, thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Martin, four minutes.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you again.

The point has been made that the accountability and transparency aspects of the bill have been a smokescreen, really, for the secondary objective that government might have. This has been raised as one of the apprehensions that first nations leadership has about the bill, that the real goal of the bill is to reduce the fiduciary obligation or to abrogate or diminish inherent aboriginal or treaty rights, that this is the real goal here, and the accountability and transparency issues are a way to sell it to the general public, because they've whipped up this myth that all first nations are so corrupt or so incompetent, or the incidence of corruption is so high that it's a national emergency and must be dealt with immediately with this heavy-handed legislation.

We find that offensive, because the empirical evidence is that 96% of all first nations submit their audits on time, and so on, and that when there is fiscal mismanagement, it's often due to the impossible task of trying to meet the basic needs of people with revenue streams that simply aren't adequate.

It boils down to $7,000 per head. In the city of Winnipeg, we allocate $7,000 per child just for education alone, never mind housing and roads and running a whole first nation.

So I'd ask you to speak to some of the points that have been raised, that the accountability and transparency issues are minor and the real objective here is just like the 1969 white paper attempt to get out from under the obligations, the fiduciary obligations.

¾ (0850)

Mr. Charles Fox: Thank you, Mr. Martin.

With respect to accountability and transparency and tackling that particular equation, we don't have any problems with accountability and transparency. Let's sit down to look at that particular challenge. You're right, from our statistics we saw that 97% of our communities did in fact comply with the standards and requirements of the Auditor General, so that tells me that 3% did not comply. When you look at that particular equation, out of 634 communities, you're looking at maybe 25 communities.

We do have problematic areas, but to be painted and tarred with the same brush, that all 634 first nations have that problem.... Very true, it's one that's been driven in terms of propaganda to get the public media and the Canadian public on side to tackle and generate the momentum to deal with the elements of the bill that are contained with respect to the reduced fiduciary obligation.

We do see it as a reduction of fiduciary and legal obligations of the federal government. It is a smokescreen, definitely. When I look at the accountability and transparency process under the regime of the last minister and the last grand chief, there was an accountability and transparency committee that was looking at this particular question. What happened to that?

We had a big chiefs forum in Winnipeg that drew 3,000 people, and it said, we have to look at the Indian Act, we have to put it aside and rewrite the whole thing. What happened to that recommendation?

You had processes. You had an election process. We don't need Corbiere. In 1980, when there was an election, I got a phone call: I have a list of candidates; who do you want to vote for? I select my perfect candidate. Now with this new process it's going to be onerous. It's going to require more financing and more monitoring, and it's going to cost extra dollars.

We don't need this legislation. We can do it with practical solutions.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Hubbard, you have four minutes.

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

I'm hearing a lot of things. I'm from a rural area, Mr. Chair, and when we were in Alberta, we heard from groups there. Now, if you hold up a map of any province in Canada, you'll find that our native people have very small territories. They're usually pencil dots someplace near a lake or river.

My concern is what you're talking about in terms of a future. For hundreds of years wealth and success in our country have been geared to land and resources, and in Canada today about 20% of our people live in rural areas. The great wealth of our country is out there. Some say it is in the head instead of being something you walk on, that we're living in a world of ideas today.

Chief, I'm concerned with the fact that many of your people say, we need access to ideas, and we need access to money to develop those ideas. Under the Indian Act, the old 1876 thing, people were of course thinking about land and those kinds of resources. Could you explain to the committee why you don't see your people needing an opportunity to borrow money to access the capital that's needed to get away from lumber, fish, moose, and so forth, to be able to grow and sustain yourselves into this 21st century?

I know you object to the concept of, as you said, having boards of directors and being incorporated. But without the ability to access the wealth others have and to make arrangements to get that wealth, how do you see your people going? Are you always going to think about trees, fish, moose, and deer, or do we have to expand our ideas to get into the real wealth the world of the 21st century has?

¾ (0855)

Mr. Charles Fox: The idea of incorporating a business entity has been done. We've been doing that consistently within my own community. We have a business development committee that looks at business opportunities.

We don't need to incorporate chiefs and councils. Chiefs and councils are political entities, and their issue or their role is to deal with the politics of the day, the running of their communities, and to ensure that there is success, that there is a quality of a standard of living they can work towards with respect to their people.

Now, in relation to wealth-driven processes and issues, certainly we run into problems when we want to negotiate, say, a contract with respect to timber activities off reserve. A lot of those are already eaten up by commitments the provincial government has made to large corporations. We're left with crumbs. We get a few thousand board feet as third-party management from those huge corporations that have already negotiated for those huge tracts of land.

So if you're talking about access to resources, if we're going to begin to look at self-sustaining economies within our communities, you have to begin to open up those particular menus. Right now they're closed.

Where is the federal government in terms of forcing the provincial government to open those doors? Where is the issue of accessibility for first nations to generate the income that's required to run the communities, whether it's in the resource sector or otherwise? We don't currently see that. A lot of the time, the negotiations we see run into those particular walls.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We're into a two-minute round. Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: I would just like to add that, you're right, in the province of Manitoba they've given the largest cutting rights to any tract of land in the world to a foreign corporation, yet the Moose Lake Loggers, a small aboriginal company that would like to be able to provide some of the pulp and paper cutting, apply for but can't get timber permits. It's tied up.

One of the closing remarks you made in your brief was that it would be an act of such good faith, that it would be such a gesture of goodwill if they were to simply step back, take two steps back even, and start over, moving forward with some of the real priorities to amend the Indian Act in meaningful ways. Is it too late to heal some of the damage that has been caused? Could we start over on this project? Could you speak to that.

Mr. Charles Fox: There is definitely an opportunity to start over, to step back and do away with this process. Let's sit down to look at the recommendations that are contained within Penner and within the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples report. You have 440 recommendations in RCAP. They make a lot of sense to me. They're realistic and they're sensible: a first nations auditor general and ethics commissioner, a parliament for us. There are so many recommendations that deal with the very core issues we're dealing with here. Why not begin to look at the application of those particular recommendations?

Let's sit down truly as partners to chart that course, because right now there's no partnership. What you're doing is imposing on us your recommendations of what you think is right for us poor Indians. We have answers, and all I'm asking for is for equal opportunity and equal time to sit down with you. Let's treat each other with respect and develop a joint process, and let's work toward common solutions for the common problems we all face.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you.

The Chair: Ms. Neville, you have two minutes.

Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): Thank you, and thank you very much for coming.

You made a comment just before about the Corbiere decision. I wonder if you could expand on what you said. To disregard it and throw it out; is that what I heard you say?

¿ (0900)

Mr. Charles Fox: With respect to Corbiere, I realize that it is a court decision. What I am saying in relation to the bill is, you don't need to legislate Corbiere, you need to apply it.

I was referring to my particular circumstance. I live in Thunder Bay, but my home community is a remote community called Bearskin Lake, which is about 400 miles away. Every time there is an election I get a phone call. I get a list of candidates and so do my family members. Who do you want to vote for?

This bill is going to make it more onerous. There is going to be more monitoring. I have to justify who I am and I have to prove who I am. You're talking about more taxpayer dollars going to that process. We don't need to do that.

As a matter of practical application with respect to Corbiere, we're doing that already in many of our communities. Why do we need to legislate it? Aren't there more practical approaches and solutions we could look at, such as our circumstance and our approach? That's all I'm saying.

Ms. Anita Neville: I need more examples of what a practical solution is, because what we have heard in other communities is that, while it might work for you, there are frequently abuses whereby some take advantage of others who are less informed perhaps to cast their ballots for them. So how does one ensure fairness in the system, as you propose it?

Mr. Charles Fox: I don't have an answer to that. But what I can say to you is, why can't we sit down to look at those problematic areas and offer solutions and work towards solutions? We do have processes within our own communities where we enlist the aid of our elders, respected leaders, and other people maybe outside of the community who can be used to mediate or intervene or facilitate processes. There's no reason we can't sit down with you to look at the problematic areas that you've heard of across the country and offer simpler, realistic approaches to deal with that instead of legislating.

The Chair: Thank you very much. We have two minutes for closing remarks. We invite you to make that now.

Mr. Charles Fox: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

In relation to the bill itself, as I indicated, the Chiefs of Ontario does not accept the proposed bill. It should be withdrawn. There are going to be problematic areas if and when it does become in fact a reality. You're looking at legal litigation--a course that the chiefs and first nations of this country will take. Unfortunately, that's what we're looking at.

Also, as first nations leaders, what we're saying is we want to sit down with this government to chart due course in terms of how we begin to deal with the issues that are contained not only within the bill but in other areas that we have as two groups of people.

We are not just saying no to any efforts or any solutions that may be posed by this government. What we are saying is, please talk to us. Let's sit down as two respectable parties, treat each other with respect. Don't treat us like children. Let's sit down and work out common solutions to the problems we see. Let's sit down as two partners, equal to equal, and let's chart a course to deal with the many concerns and problems that not only we face as first nations people in our communities, but that the Canadian public in general face.

How do we deal with the issue of efficiency? How do we deal with the issue of fairness? How do we begin to look at the future in terms of improving the quality and standard of living for all people in this country? We want to sit down with you to chart that course, and certainly we are prepared to do that.

Thank you.

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

I now invite to the table the Grand Council Treaty No. 3. I understand there will be 12 persons presenting. The names I have registered are Grand Chief Leon Jourdain; legal counsel, Colin Gillespie; adviser, Fred Kelly; director of operations, Reid Thompson; women's council, Lorraine Seymour; youth council, Ernest Jameson; and men's council, Darryl Redsky.

We have not suspended proceedings. Order, please.

¿ (0905)

Grand Chief Leon Jourdain (Grand Council Treaty No. 3): Before I begin, Mr. Chair, there has been change in the order of the people who are going to be representing our nation. The people you've announced have been changed and the office has been informed of the changes. I believe the--

The Chair: That's completely acceptable. It's okay, but I will ask you to assume the responsibility of introducing everyone for us.

We have one hour together. We invite you to make presentations, and hopefully you will leave some time for questions.

We ask you to proceed now, Grand Chief.

Grand Chief Leon Jourdain: [Editor's Note: Witness speaks in his native language]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable members of the standing committee. Before I introduce myself, I would like to introduce the people I have come here with: Chief Erwin Redsky, chief responsible for education; Larry Henry, chief of Dalles First Nation, a community within our nation; a chief from Grassy Narrows; our Elder, Allan White; a representative of the Women's Council; the youth representative; Tom Favell, from one of our communities, chief responsible for justice; and our technical person at the end.

I am Leon Jourdain, Grand Chief of the Anishinaabe Nation in Treaty No. 3, selected under the traditional selection process of our nation. Our traditional government is united in the grand council, which is comprised of 28 communities located in both the provinces of Ontario and Manitoba. I welcome all of you. I welcome you to Thunder Bay in Anishinaabe country.

This is the sacred land of the Nanabozho, our grandfather who you see resting across the bay. Inseparable from creation, he is part of the landscape that signifies our own connection to the land and waters of our territories.

As well, I welcome you to the Mountain of the Thunderbird under whose shadow we are gathered here today. On that mountain sits the spiritual wing who has watched over our people and our way of life since time immemorial--our identity and our culture.

In order for you to understand our opposition to this framework, for our future relationship, you must understand who we are and what our experiences have been from various governments we have known.

Having been placed here by the Creator, we received sacred law that forms the basis of our traditional constitution. It is oral. It is unwritten. And it is not unlike the constitution of Great Britain, from which Canada's powers were delegated. Thus, living our life according to the law of the Creator, we are self-governing and self-sufficient.

We have no need of external impositions. Simply put, we are sovereign, and we lived in peace and harmony with all creation and exercised our inherent capacity to enjoin other peoples in our relations. It is in fact by virtue of our sovereignty and constitution that we entered into Treaty No. 3 with the Crown in right of Canada in 1873 as a nation.

I would like to start by stating that my comments are not to be considered as consultation. They are merely a picture of what is in the hearts and minds of our people--our children, our women, and our men--and of our future generations.

¿ (0910)

But before I go on, Mr. Chairman, the people I'm here with are the people--the chiefs, the women, the youth, and the men--who make up our traditional government. They do not flow from the Indian Act. We have re-established our nation. And as I go through my words with you, my statements with you, you are talking to a nation of people. You are not talking to separate bands. You are not talking about reservations. I will not be speaking about reservations. I will be speaking about the treaty. I will be speaking about the Anishinaabe constitution, the sovereignty of our people. That's what I will be talking about.

I will have little time to talk about the specifics of the governance act. I am here to remind you, and to remind this country, that they are under a legal and fiduciary obligation to honour the treaties that they entered into with our ancestors.

What you see here in front of you is a government of our nation. The Creator gave us, the Anishinaabe, a way of living in peace and harmony with all walks of life on Mother Earth. That includes with you, our white brothers and sisters.

In order to understand our opposition, you must understand where we come from and where we are and where we'd like to go. We are self-governing and self-sufficient. We have no need of external impositions. It was confirmed and recorded as a historical statement by Lieutenant-Governor Morris, the Queen's commissioner; “I wish to treat you as a nation and not as separate bands.”

We never gave up our inherent right to govern ourselves. We will continue to fight for the sovereign right and will continue to force the government of what we now call Canada to acknowledge this treaty they signed and their obligation to uphold their end of the agreement.

The Supreme Court of Canada has declared that Indian treaties are a special class by themselves. Chief Justice Dixon said: “An Indian treaty is unique; it is an agreement sui generis which is neither created nor terminated according to the rules of international law.”

The intent of Bill C-7, the proposed governance act, will further violate the coexistence between the Crown in right of Canada and the Anishinaabe Nation in Treaty No. 3.

We will not jeopardize our constitution of our nation any longer. Bill C-7 must not go forward. We have to force the federal government to live up to their end of the treaties that we've signed. We are a nation and we will never cease being a nation.

We never gave up our right to govern ourselves, but then the Indian Act came in 1876, which was a breach of treaty. What we are talking about here, obviously, are amendments to the Indian Act. Our people, my people, were not consulted with in 1876. We never agreed to the Indian Act. Yet it continues.

I want to paraphrase, to bring to your attention, a Superintendent General of Indian Affairs of 1920--his name was Duncan Campbell Scott--who said in the House of Commons, “Our objective is to continue until there is not a single Indian in Canada that has not been absorbed into the body politic, and there is no Indian question, and no Indian Department.” That is the objective of this bill.

Our plight, our opposition to Bill C-7, is that we look at this as a continuation of what was set out for us in 1920, that is, to assimilate and terminate our people.

¿ (0915)

The Indian Act has already subjugated our people for well over a hundred years. Tinkering and amending will simply update colonialism. Updating colonialism is not the answer for our people. It will not bring economic prosperity. It will not bring social development. It will not bring the spirit back to my people. It will further entrench and confirm that our people are incapable of looking after their own affairs and the affairs of their own children. We are continually reminded that we are not capable of looking after our affairs. But I am here to tell you that we do have the capacity and the spirit to rebuild our nation under what we believe to be the natural government of our people.

Canada spent $58 million on the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, and its recommendations for the most part are gathering dust. That is very critical. What you're hearing throughout this country is probably the same thing the commissioners heard when they went across the country to interview our people about what would be the answers. The royal commission is very pertinent to what we're talking about, and what are its recommendations doing? They are collecting dust.

The Indian Act amendments have already fractured the good relations that our respective governments have worked so hard to achieve. Now Bill C-7 will polarize our people even more. Surely this is not the legacy you would want to leave behind. If somebody wants to leave a legacy, you have to do something different.

When the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs first announced this initiative, he said that consultations would be open, honest, inclusive, credible, focused, and representative. I am here to tell you that 98% of our people across this country have not consented or have not even been consulted. Now, 2% have been consulted and 2% may support, but it's certainly not open. It's certainly open in its resolve to move forward, consequences be damned.

In 1998, Mr. Chairman and members of the standing committee, your country, Canada, owned up to its attitude of racial and cultural superiority, which led to the suppression of aboriginal identity and of languages, culture, and spiritual practices. It apologized for actions on the once self-sustaining nations, which were disaggregated, disrupted, limited, or even destroyed by the dispossession of traditional territory. By the relocation of aboriginal people and by some provisions of the Indian Act, we must acknowledge that the result of these actions was the erosion of the political, economic, and social systems of aboriginal peoples and their nations.

Honourable members of the committee, your government issued these words, words that echoed throughout the world. Was it possible that colonialism and colonial thinking was dead in Canada? Obviously not. The proposed First Nations Governance Act reclaims everything this country apologized to my people for. It reclaims colonialism, and it destroys the very essence of the reconciliation of which it spoke. Try as we might to see honesty and credibility here, it's a real scratch.

Most people attending the consultation sessions did so as observers, not participants.

¿ (0920)

In regard to the proposal, our submission to you is our official submission. I am merely pulling out certain things from the submission, for it is much too long for me to cover the whole submission. The submission that has been forwarded to you is our official position as a nation in Treaty No. 3.

Bill C-7 proposes to give us the legal capacity, rights, powers, and privileges of an actual person. The result would be to turn our governments into corporations and not maintain our traditional governments and communities. The legitimacy of our governments flows from our own constitution. A corporation under Canadian law is not capable of having treaty or aboriginal rights.

The Anishinaabe Nation in Treaty No. 3 had the legal status and capacity to enter into treaty. Such a provision, therefore, would be a breach of the Canada Act of 1982. Bill C-7 proposes a two-year exemption from application to allow first nations to complete a final agreement on self-government. Let me remind you it took 16 years to finally complete Treaty No. 3 of 1873. It took Canada 115 years before it had its own constitution. It took the Nisga'a some 20 years, according to Canada, and some 112 years, according to the Nisga'a people, to finally complete their agreement.

We ought to know by now, members of the committee, that rebuilding a nation and its government is a matter of immense magnitude. Timeframes must be reasonable and allow for the process of development by the people themselves. This requires mutual trust and goodwill. Based on our experience in Treaty No. 3, good faith on Canada's part is sporadic and intermittent. At the moment, we are at the lowest ebb of such a flow.

I want to go on now to bring you some of the work we have done. It's in your packages. I have given you a lot of history, which you've probably heard in your visits throughout the country. What I want to give you now is some of the work we have done as a nation in Treaty No. 3.

We entered into a consultation process, a nation-to-nation agreement, with Canada in 1997. We entered into a framework agreement with Canada called Bimiiwinidizowin Omaa Akiing--Governance on our Land. Through negotiations, both parties would have come to harmonize the administration of these laws as a practical basis for the exercise of inherent right to self-government in Treaty No. 3. Both parties would invoke their legislative process to give effect to the final agreement. It was an approach consistent with our respective constitutions and the treaty. It was based on mutual trust and respect. Canada's negotiator believed in good faith that he was working toward a final agreement within two years. We had undertaken to complete the draft of the final agreement by the end of this very month.

¿ (0925)

Bob Nault, the member of Parliament whose riding also happens to be in our territory and who signed the agreement as a formal witness, proceeded almost immediately after he became Minister of Indian Affairs to systematically undermine the process. He would have you believe that he merely suspended the negotiations. But terminating the contracts of negotiators and cutting off funding, does that not sound like terminating the process? Honourable members of the committee, he killed it.

For further information, I would refer you again to the package I have provided you. The information is relevant to your hearings, because you will see that the completion within two years of self-government agreements, especially those that contemplate real inherent rights, is unrealistic and misguided.

Our people had hope in this process of rebuilding our nation through the nation-to-nation discussion we had with this country. It was all about rebuilding the nation and building laws. It is not about partnerships under administrative arrangements; it is about bringing honour to your country and bringing integrity to Canadians to honour what they agreed to.

We have upheld our end of the bargain. You've heard that throughout the country. But what you have in front of you in this package is a way that Canada can, in fact, begin to give substance...to work themselves under the pins of what they created. I hope, in this particular package, you will begin to see what brings life and definition to section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

That is an empty box, and it has been empty since its creation. It is time that aboriginal peoples begin to fill that box on their own, because if there is going to be legitimacy, if there's going to be life in aboriginal country, they must do it themselves. It is not as if Canada does not have a place to go when we talk to you about treaty, Anishinaabe constitution, and our abilities to make law as nations.

You have the Canadian Constitution. You have your own Supreme Court decisions that have reaffirmed and confirmed what we bring forward to you. You have the Nisga'a. You have the Delgamuukw decision that reaffirmed legally, by the highest court of this country, that our people do have inherent rights. The fact that we signed treaty with this country, with the Queen in right of Canada, did not diminish our inherent right to govern ourselves as nations, not just as Indian reservations.

We also talked to the universities, those universities that have been involved in world economy, that have worked with indigenous peoples around the world in the area of economy. They said economic development will never happen in Indian country unless these things are part of the plan, the very foundation and elements. If the minister wants to talk about economic development, then he is way off base, because what I bring forward to you are the founding principles of 18 years of study by the most renowned universities in this country, by renowned world economists who believe that without these elements there will not be sustaining economic development in Indian country.

In terms of practical sovereignty, this bill won't work. It ignores the fundamental requirements of good governance. Harvard University pointed out to you, and I will point it out to you again, that in order to build sustainable economies and good governments you must have, and we need, practical sovereignty, meaning genuine decision-making power over internal affairs, governance, resources, institutions, and development strategies--capable governing institutions that exercise power effectively, responsibly, and reliably.

¿ (0930)

Cultural match: Formal institutions of government must match indigenous conceptions of how authority should be organized and exercised. That is very critical, extremely critical. I would like the members of the committee to educate themselves. I know you will have time to ask me questions, but it is going to be beyond me. You're going to have to do your own education.

Nation building has been the focus of my term as grand chief. When my ancestors signed the treaty, they concurred with Governor Morris, who said, I wish to treat you as a nation. I keep bringing that back. I keep bringing that back throughout my talk with you.

The commissioner said to our people prior to 1876, prior to signing the treaty, I wish to talk to you as nations; I do not wish to talk to you as separate bands.

This bill will fail because it will not fan the flames of hope of my people. Rather, it is the cruelest form of misguided intentions blindly repeating the mistakes of the past in the hope that somehow the outcome will be different.

I believe I have gone a short distance in giving my people some hope. I believe that my people have reassembled the skeleton of our nation.

Members of the committee, Minister Ron Irwin and Minister Jane Stewart have worked with my nation over the past five years to help us rebuild it. You will note, if you view the framework agreement between Canada and the Anishinaabe Nation, that Minister Ron Irwin did a curious thing when he signed the framework, he added this:--30--.

I am told that this is an old telegraph message that meant end of transmission. The significance of this lighthearted addition immediately before the minister retired suggests to me that the minister was setting us out on a course that was unique in the framework agreement signed by Canada to date.

This was going to be different because that's what we need to do. We need to do something different. We can talk about the details of the governance act here today. We can talk until we're blue in the face, but we have to talk about something different. The road that we have taken, the course that we have taken, for 130 years must come to an end.

We have to start listening. The Anishinaabe people have set out a course on the road to freedom, a journey to fully exercise and be part of this country. But until that happens, there will not be freedom or life with my people. There will never be that. It will further entrench us and further drive wedges between us, your people and mine.

It is ironic that the war is happening today. Colonization is the root of all evil. And this country has a chance to lead. This country has a chance to look at these types of visions, and other visions across the country, to bring hope to all of us that we will coexist and harmonize.

That is your job and that is ours. And the governance act does not do it.

¿ (0935)

It spoke of law-making. It spoke of rebuilding a nation. It spoke of relighting the spark of my people.

Understand, members of the committee, in 1873, when we signed the treaty, October 3, October 4, the morning after, my people woke up to a different sun. They woke up to a different sun. And ever since then, it has been systematic that the fire of life amongst my people continues to diminish. It diminishes based on the first bucket of water that was thrown on the flame of my people, which came in 1876. The residential schools, all the pieces of legislation that come forward, take this water and throw it on the flame of our children.

Where we're at today, members of the committee, is that for my people, our children, our grandchildren, what was once a burning flame of life is now nothing but an ash. We must act now before that ash turns to dust. How do we fan this ash and allow it to burn again? This particular legislation will be the last piece, along with the other pieces of legislation that are coming down, that will coerce our children and generations to come so that the spirits of my people will be turned to ash.

Do not think for one moment that I will be silent. And do not think for one moment that because when I speak out against the governance act.... And those who speak out against it are punished, and those who favour it are being rewarded. That's just the way it's working. That's the nature of the beast.

I have to make a conscious decision much the same as you. You have children, much the same as we do. What we want for our children, much the same as what you want for yours, is to be free. You can look into the background, into your history, and find out who you are. Do not deny us that, because this is what it's about. This is the last chapter. This is it right here, right now. You're the committee. This is the government.

Do you want to leave a legacy? Then I would certainly recommend that you think long and hard. When I'm speaking here, we are talking as a nation. There is a representation here of my nation in this government.

We are speaking to seven generations from now, to our grandchildren yet unborn and our great-grandchildren of the future. If you can hear us, and you will hear us, this bill that's coming down, we do not agree with it. We do not support it. We've done everything we can to stop it. Grandchildren, we're doing everything we can to stop it because you will be the ones who will feel it.

I have the leaders here. I have the women here. I have the youth here. And we all join together in harmony to oppose this. So if you can hear us, which you will, we do not agree with Bill C-7, the governance act. It must die. For the good of this country, for the integrity of your people, and the honour of your children, you must help us. Slow it down, if nothing else, but ultimately it must die.

Meegwetch.

¿ (0940)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Grand Chief, are there others in your delegation who wish to make comments before we go to questions? Of those who are at the table only.

You may want to involve them in answering questions, then, if not--

Grand Chief Leon Jourdain: Yes.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We'll do four-minute rounds. Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I'm really quite encouraged and intrigued to hear your mention of rebuilding nations here. I think out in Saskatchewan and all parts of western Canada, certainly, we see a band, a community if you will, of 100 people or sometimes less even--many are small--and certainly it's not viable, it's not feasible. They want to do things in terms of health education, but there is just not the critical mass to do it. I think certainly a lot of people do agree with you in the fact that a “band” under the Indian Act is not a first nation.

There is a certain latitude within this particular bill in terms of allowing certain of these functions and services to come together and rebuild a nation, if you will. It's not maybe quite in the fashion that you've gone about doing it, but in the way of tribal councils, some of those forums that do it out in Saskatchewan, out in western Canada, as you do here I'm sure, as well.

Is that not a possibility? And maybe that's what you've done when you talk of rebuilding. I'm curious to hear more about that, about what you mean. Do you share services? You're probably not all at the same location. You're probably spread into different parts of your area. What can you tell me about how you've gone about rebuilding your nation in terms of providing the basics of health education, administrative services, and so on?

Grand Chief Leon Jourdain: The nation is 55,000 square miles of lands and territory, as I mentioned earlier when I first started to speak. The nation can make a law such as about child care, which we have. That particular law can be operationalized by an institution that can be born under the law, which can give responsibility, and accountability, and transparency, and redress. The difference here is that the nation makes the law.

The critical thing, and I think you've touched on it, is where does that authority flow from? You are talking about the provision within the governance act that can probably allow that to happen, but that is just not the way it works. That's not what we're talking about. We talk about a nation-to-nation relationship. Canada must find a way to build that relationship.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: How many people would there be in terms of the first nation that you represent? How many, several thousand people?

Grand Chief Leon Jourdain: I represent 20,000 people.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Advise me, Leon. When I have individuals either from my constituency or outside my constituency, as does occur--and I have aboriginal friends, first nations friends, in different parts of the country and certainly my province of Saskatchewan, and I had that in my teen years and college days certainly as well. When I have different ones come and they have a concern about this issue or the other in terms of their particular band--we'll use the Indian Act term for a moment here--in terms of either not getting services, or maybe they're not happy with how the leadership selection process has gone and so on, it gets my heart. As a fellow human being, I can't just say, forget it, it's not my deal, I have no concern about it. I do care when anybody comes to me about any particular issue, actually.

For some of these dear people, it seems, from what they're telling me at least, there is something that needs to be addressed. So as you rebuild your first nation, do you have what I would call appeal processes, that is, neutral, independent, and impartial appeal processes, redress mechanisms? Let's say, as a leader, I want there to be an opportunity so that I'm not perceived as being in a conflict of interest and somebody can go to some board, some body, whatever, to critique me--or if I'm a mayor, this type of thing. Do you have a body like that? Are you thinking of setting something like that up? An ombudsman.

¿ (0945)

Grand Chief Leon Jourdain: Remember that when we're talking we are talking of the whole of the nation. I hope everybody understands that. Move away from the Indian reservation, look at the whole of the nation and its law.

I mentioned the child care law. The other law that can come in under this particular process is leadership selection, how leaders would be selected. But how the communities select their leaders would be brought forward by the nation. In there would be these elements that you're talking about. That would be the most primary component of this law.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

The four-minute round became a five-minute round, so Mr. Martin, five minutes.

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

And thank you, Grand Chief, for a very moving and a very powerful presentation. I actually appreciate the fact that you stayed away from the specifics of the bill and spoke to the larger picture, because I think that's the education process that needs to take place with the people around this table and with a new minister, etc.

I also want to thank you for opening your remarks with your first language. There was a very moving statement made by Grand Chief Francis Flett when he was making the point, to quote him, that “our laws are in our language”. And he didn't just mean the laws were spoken in the language; he meant the laws are inherent in the culture and language. That double meaning was not lost on the people of this committee, and you made it very powerfully too.

Also, I think if anybody wasn't moved by you speaking to your grandchildren and the idea that seven generations from now someone will pick up the historical record of this meeting today and read the transcripts and notice that you were doing everything you could, everything within your power, to prevent this mistake, then there's something dead inside them. It's moving to me when I read the historical record of the original signatories to the treaty and I note the faith, and the optimism, and the hope, and the goodwill that was in their words as they sat down, and then there were the 130 years of social tragedy that followed. It's very powerful.

You've spent a lot of time in your brief on the Harvard study, I suppose trying to convince people of your issues by using the non-aboriginal senior counsel, the institutions of higher learning, Harvard being, I suppose, up there as the highest.

They make the point--and I'll ask you to speak to this with what time we have--that governance codes without true sovereignty are about as likely to succeed as sovereignty would be without good governance codes. In other words, it's sovereignty that has to come first and then the implementation of governance codes.

Would you care to take a minute to speak to that point?

Grand Chief Leon Jourdain: You heard me mention that--if I can say this for the purposes of the English language--we need a place to begin. We need a place to start. We need a place that'll have foundation. And so when I spoke, and throughout my talk, I talked about the Anishinaabe constitution. I talked about the treaty. I talked about the nation. It's the same thing as Harvard. Because it's very clear that where we begin ultimately is going to determine where we're going to end up.

So it's time to go, stop, and go back. Let's talk about substance here. It's the same thing as Harvard is saying. Without these elements it's a waste of time, it's a waste of people's lives. You're allowing my people to bleed, and it's inhumane to do that.

We have to come from a place of mutual understanding of those elements of where we're going to talk from. If we can establish that, then we're headed in a different direction that speaks of honour of your people and my people and we're going to blaze a trail. We have to be trail blazers in order for us to advance our agendas, true agendas that are as honest and as open as we can have them.

That brings the economic development. That brings the social development. That takes my hands out of the minister's pocket. All of our chiefs here survive on how deep they can dig into the minister's pocket for money. The idea here, members of the committee, is to take my hand and other chiefs' hands out of the minister's pocket.

That's the challenge. But if you only concentrate on Indian reservation lands, there isn't enough there to sustain the economy of our people.

¿ (0950)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

On the Liberal side, Mr. Dromisky, for five minutes.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Thank you very much.

Thanks for your presentation. It's very comprehensive. It's going to take a long time for me to slowly go through and digest it, although many of the concepts have already been presented to this committee by chiefs across the country in our other sessions.

You are a leader and a grand leader. How many chiefs are there within your constituency?

Grand Chief Leon Jourdain: Twenty-eight.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Twenty-eight. That's a very large number, representing over 20,000 constituents, which is a very impressive number.

I'm concerned about leadership. I've heard a lot of strategies have been implemented in western Canada and the other provinces, and I would like to know, what are you doing with the 28 chiefs to deal with the kinds of areas that have already been presented in the bill? In other words, why should we have that bill when we're already working on these three or four major areas that are represented in the bill?

We are doing this, we are doing that, we have accountability, transparency, and so forth. Can you give me some guidance as to what is happening within your jurisdiction already?

Grand Chief Leon Jourdain: What's that in terms of? Can you be clear on--

Mr. Stan Dromisky: It's in terms of the major areas that are within Bill C-7, the concerns that have been raised when you talk about the administrative practices, transparencies, accountability, and these areas.

Grand Chief Leon Jourdain: All that is controlled by the minister, first of all. That's my opening answer to your question. Everything we do is controlled by the minister. The final decision...before we are born, the minister controls us. When we die, even after we die, and throughout our lives--the authority over my people's lives every day and while they sleep is controlled by one man. That's the reality, okay? How can that be in the land of democracy, the land of the free?

But I'll answer your question more specifically. The first nations and their leadership are doing everything they can to try to build their communities. They have been for a long time, and they'll probably do that for the next 130 years if nothing changes.

I'll try to answer your question this way. If there is no ownership of the leadership in terms of accountability, transparency, redress, and all these things the bill lays out, without that ownership, those things will never become a reality. It won't happen.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Thank you, Grand Chief Leon.

I'm just referring to something that was told to us by one of the other grand chiefs in western Canada. For instance, he says that when he meets with all his chiefs, he has a code of ethics they have worked on, a code of ethics that was developed by the chiefs and the grand chiefs.

He also said that they really stress that members of the band all know how much money he's getting from Ottawa, how much money is being spent, and where it's being spent, and they also have input regarding the spending of that money. These are the kinds of things I'm talking about. What strategies are you using, implementing, teaching, and sharing throughout the 28--

¿ (0955)

Grand Chief Leon Jourdain: A lot of the work that has been done is in the area of decolonizing. Once you decolonize, the responsibility and accountability and everything else flow from there.

It used to be that when I met with the chiefs, there were 28 chiefs in assembly under a corporate organizational standard. We had to get rid of that. We got rid of the corporate status. We got rid of the status of only being an advocate for our aboriginal rights and treaties. The chiefs had to make a decision, first of all: what is it you're going to be? Do you want to be a corporation when you come together, and not only when you come together but in your everyday lives? Do you want to be a corporation? Do you want to be an advocacy group only, or do you want to be a nation, a government for your people?

That's how it was done. The decision was made that we would go back and rebuild our nation. The level of discussions we're having now is not administrative. It forces us, it elevates the chiefs to their rightful place as leaders in the political arena.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We have time for a two-minute round. Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Presently, as I understand it, the Canadian Human Rights Act doesn't apply or provide protection for first nations people across the country. We've had discussions in other parts of the country about a possible Indian human rights act, if you will. Have you and your 28 chiefs had discussions in terms of maybe taking the initiative, being pre-emptive, and coming up with an Indian human rights act or something, an act that would cover off and give the basic kinds of protections the Canadian Human Rights Act would? Had you had discussions or conversations along those lines at all?

Grand Chief Leon Jourdain: We've had many discussions in reference to this one. The difficulty comes from the fact that Canada walked away from the table when we were building our nation based on the ability to make laws, as you will see in your packages. At any time, if you want us to come and do further educating on those circular diagrams, by all means let us know, and we can do that.

But to get back to your question, I talked about child care law and the nation making the law. Other laws would follow, including the type of law you're talking about. You would be under the umbrella of the nation and three sets of laws. Three levels of government would emerge, the Ontario government, the Anishinaabe government, and the Canadian government. That's what the treaties were meant to do. That's what we agreed to. This plan can do that.

The other thing I want to bring up--I'm sorry, I'd better not. I'll do that in my closing statements.

The Chair: Mr. Martin, you have two minutes.

Mr. Pat Martin: I guess the framework agreement that was on the table with the progress being made really does speak to the end goal of true self-governance, of getting out from under the Indian Act altogether. We were well on the way to an agreement in principle at least. The Province of Manitoba is eight years into some satisfactory arrangement, and the same goes for the Province of Saskatchewan. Now the current minister is going in the opposite direction.

Can you speak to the importance of the framework agreement and the implementation of the treaty process as opposed to tinkering with the Indian Act and the cost factors associated with that?

Grand Chief Leon Jourdain: It is very critical that the committee and others know we are and will be going through a very rigorous educational process for non-aboriginals in the writing to understand our vision. Because it is our vision, that's what it is.

A vision will only be a dream if we don't act on it, and we've done that. The minister walked away from the table because it cost $8 million dollars and we had nothing to show for it. He's never met with me since then. He has never had the opportunity, as you're having right now, to sit down and talk to me about the progress that has been made. If he had, he hopefully would have a different understanding.

This is what is involved in decolonizing people or leading to a different place, leading towards the promised land, if you will, for all of us. It needs trail blazing and it needs leaders. It needs leaders who are going to take risks. It needs leaders with vision. It needs leaders who are going to say within themselves that something has to change, that if something is doing nothing but just robbing the lives of people and allowing them to bleed, then let's change course. That's what this thing does.

À (1000)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Hubbard.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Chief, we listen to the minister and we hear him talk about more than 600 first nations. Today in your presentation we have you as chief, with 28 of the various groups the minister deals with across this part of Canada. Are you suggesting that instead of the minister having 28 relationships it would be better to have one? That is, your people as Treaty No. 3 could be dealing with the minister on a nation-to-nation basis rather than as 28 separate groups.

Grand Chief Leon Jourdain: When we go, I must speak as a grand chief. I have a duty to speak on behalf of the nation that signed the treaty. We always have to go back to what the treaty said. Who did you sign on with? Who was there? The nation was there.

Let me put it to you this way just for a moment. The lives of all our people will never come to a significant place of economic or spiritual or social development unless this happens, if you can understand it this way. The treaty will never come to life. The treaty will only come to life after the nation comes to life. The treaty will not come to life--only after the nation, the whole of the nation.

To get back to your question, last week in the Kenora Enterprise the minister was interviewed and quoted as saying, Canada will never agree, and I support this, that there never will be sovereignty in the first nations; there will never be that.

Canada takes the position that there can never be 600-plus first nations that are sovereign scattered around the country. That's not what I'm talking about. I am talking about the nation. Remember now 1873. We were there, our grandfathers were there, to sign with you on a nation-to-nation basis.

The Chair: Excuse me, Grand Chief. Please continue, but this completes your closing remarks. You have three more minutes.

Grand Chief Leon Jourdain: I would encourage the committee and this country to revisit the discussions we had with Canada, to go back and help us rebuild. I said throughout my talk that the honour of this country is at stake, the integrity of your people, to honour the treaties and our nations.

I talked about you as leaders and you talked about me as a leader, that we must have the courage and the heart and the spirit to go in a different direction. We must face the political consequences or otherwise of blazing a new trail for the good of peoples and for the sake of humanity. That's what needs to happen.

We have been in this relationship, a deteriorated relationship, where Canada benefited, not my people. Canada benefited from our treaties that we signed with you. My people only bled, and they have been bleeding for 130 years. According to this minister, we will not be in a place to even talk about government for another 60 years. Those yet unborn today will be 60 years old when we come to this table again. Do you realize how many of my people will die and are dying today?

Remember that sign of life that I talked about. That is your duty, and that is mine. That is a duty for every man, woman, and child. This is not a colour issue. This is basic human rights. This is about humanity. Take that home, for you have to look at your children; I have to look at mine.

One of the worst fears I hope you can share with me and that I have as a leader is that one day, if I am fortunate enough to see my grandchild, he or she is going to be staring at me in the eye and asking me this question: Grandfather, you are a grand chief. You are a chief and you are a grand chief. What did you ever do for me to protect my sovereign and inherent rights? I hope, but I also know, that I will be able to stare back into the eyes of that innocent child and say I did everything that I could.

Meegwetch.

À (1005)

The Chair: Thank you very much. My wish for you is that you have many, many grandchildren. I do believe you will be able to look them straight in the eye and defend that.

Grand Chief Leon Jourdain: Thank you.

The Chair: From the Matawa First Nations, I invite Paul Capon, political adviser. I understand he will be joined by Bentley Cheechoo, Veronica Waboose, Stanley Bois, Sonny Gagnon, and Roger Oshkineegish.

Mr. Cheechoo asked us if we can take a break. We expect freezing rain so we're hoping the plane will get out of here. We have public hearings in Toronto tonight until ten o'clock.

Mr. Bentley Cheechoo (Tribal Chair, Matawa First Nations): Well, that's good. If you're in town, maybe we can share a few ideas before you leave.

The Chair: Who will be leading the delegation? Should I refer to you as chief? I don't see it here. Mr. Cheechoo or Chief Cheechoo.

Bentley Cheechoo: Mr. Cheechoo will be fine.

The Chair: Thank you very much. We have 45 minutes together. We invite you to make presentations. You may share the time with the colleagues you have here and hopefully you will allow time for questions.

Please proceed.

Bentley Cheechoo: First of all, I'd like to say thank you for the opportunity on behalf of the chiefs who are with me here. Maybe I can ask the individual chiefs to introduce themselves, not only for the committee but for the audience. Maybe I can start with Stanley.

Mr. Stanley Bois (Councillor, Eabametoong First Nation, Matawa First Nations): I am Stanley Bois of Eabametoong First Nation.

Chief Roger Oshkineegish (Nibinamik First Nation, Matawa First Nations): I am Roger Oshkineegish of Ginoogaming First Nation.

Chief Gordon Wabasse (Webequie First Nation, Matawa First Nations): I am Chief Gord Wabasse from Webequie First Nation.

Chief Arthur Moore (Constance Lake First Nation, Matawa First Nations): My name is Chief Arthur Moore from Constance Lake First Nation.

À (1010)

Chief Veronica Waboose (Long Lake #58 First Nation, Matawa First Nations): I am Veronica Waboose, chief of Long Lake Reserve 58.

Chief Sonny Gagnon (Aroland First Nation, Matawa First Nations): Sonny Gagnon, chief of Aroland First Nation.

Bentley Cheechoo: My name is Bentley Cheechoo. I'm the tribal chair from Matawa Tribal Council.

First of all, we'd like to thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today on Bill C-7, the proposed First Nations Governance Act.

I think a brief was presented to you. I apologize for the timing. I know there are regulations on when it should be in the hands of the committee, but unfortunately we were not able to to do that at this time. But I believe there is a copy for you.

In keeping with the committee's rules, we would like to present a very brief executive summary that will recap some of the issues in our written brief. After these opening remarks we will look forward to a discussion, as the chairman said, with the committee to address any of your questions on our presentation.

Many years ago, the Matawa First Nations signed a treaty between your nation and ours. Treaty No. 9, in both the written and oral understandings, is a recognition and affirmation of our sovereignty and inherent rights. Soon after the treaty was signed, Canada unilaterally acted and told our people the rules we would live by. It was as though our sovereignty and rights to governance and other jurisdictions just disappeared.

Our people felt as though they had everything of importance stripped from them and there was a concerted effort on the part of Canada to assimilate them into the Canadian governance regime. They soon learned that they were also being alienated from their lands and resources, they were not allowed to vote, and they even lost the authority to determine what was best for their children.

Now, many years later, after struggling so long to make progress in Canada, we feel like the entire nightmare is being repeated in Bill C-7, the so-called First Nations Governance Act.

As first nations people, we cannot sit back and let Canada make such a huge mistake with Bill C-7. There's far too much at stake. The Matawa First Nations members number only 8,000 people, and over 48% of our members are of school age. We have a responsibility as leaders and parents to assure them of a better future. We must create good governance and opportunity. We believe that Bill C-7 will undermine our efforts and deny us the tools we truly need to move forward.

There is much we have done without Bill C-7. We have found ways to improve education programs in our classrooms, establish health programs in our communities, create economic growth and opportunities, finance and build additional housing, and start taking charge of managing our community financial affairs and fixing the problems we have inherited. We have demonstrated a capacity to deal with financial management and accountability issues, in spite of not being properly equipped at the onset to handle such a diverse and complicated array of programs and services. We most certainly remain capable of running democratic elections and administering governance.

À (1015)

Our people rightfully feel proud of the accomplishments they have achieved under very difficult conditions. However, they also realize there is much unfinished business, and there are so many people who remain in need.

While we have financed an investment of $40 million in housing to date, we must do much more. We need to double the amount of our housing investments; however, we have reached the level of debt we can carry. We need to build more and better school facilities in our communities and have the authority to design and implement our own programs and services. We need to get out from under any legislation that is not serving the best interests of our people. We need more equity and capital to invest in economic development opportunities. We need to have resources and program authority to address critical health issues in our communities.

While we need so many things to advance, we cannot begin to tell you the frustration and anger many of our people feel when they see the logging trucks go down the road. In that one sector alone, we see much we are denied. Every year in Ontario, forestry injects $17 billion into the economy. Over $3.2 billion of that money comes from the Matawa First Nations' territory. As you know, we get next to nothing of that money. Yet municipalities get enormous funding from Ontario to operate their governments, programs, and services. Just imagine what we could do with all or part of that $3.2 billion that comes from forestry each year.

It is our submission that, where we are making progress, we are realizing those achievements without Bill C-7. We are doing it on our own. When we look at the elements to truly advance our agenda, they're not found in Bill C-7. Bill C-7 does not give us access to lands and resources. It does not give us the authorities of governance we need to design and implement our programs and services. It does not give us the fiscal resources we need. It does not create the tables we need to negotiate new arrangements with other governments and industry.

What Bill C-7 does give us is a lot of responsibility and accountability in very limited areas of governance. In short, Bill C-7 is setting us up for a predetermined and prescribed failure.

What we truly need is change, and change is something that cannot simply be legislated and imposed upon people. Effective change must come from people, from the communities. If the people do not believe in something, it will not be supported and will not succeed. Good governance will only succeed when people believe in the foundations, forms, and practices of governance. If our people cannot design and shape the forms of their own institutions and functions of governance, how can they believe in democracy?

We ask the government of Canada and supporters of Bill C-7 to step away from the edge, to pull back this legislation and start anew. The last thing we all need is decades of poor relationships under another piece of bad legislation. That will diminish us all.

I thank you for your time and look forward to your questions at this time.

Meegwetch.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Are there other members of your delegation who wish to make presentations, or do you wish to go to questions? We'll go directly to questions.

First round, five minutes, Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I guess I'll ask the question, and whoever at the table wants to respond can do so. Maybe that's the best way to do it.

As I asked the previous grand chief here, back in the 1980s there was a lot of talk about dismantling the Indian Act and moving on to self-government. The minister in his own words--if this is to be understood as correct--views this as transitional or interim, if you will, until we get to those self-government agreements.

Of the bands you represent here today, how many individually or together as a group are going along a certain route, in terms of self-government? Are there any negotiations on the table right now?

À (1020)

Bentley Cheechoo: Well, first of all, let me say we've always had self-government. There's no such thing as a route to self-government; it's something we've always had. We've inherited it as a people. Maybe it is not in the context of the way it's set up as a Canadian institution, if you want to call it that, like your Parliament and your legislators, but we've always had governance.

I guess one can say, how is that? I'm here today talking to you. If we didn't have any form of governance, I wouldn't be sitting here talking to you today. That's what makes us survive.

The Chair: I think I should interject. The question is specifically in the context of government, because as we all know, once you reach an agreement on what the government says is self-governance--although what you say is correct--then you are no longer subject to the Indian Act.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: That's right, getting out from under the Indian Act. You're under the Indian Act now, right? I understand what you're saying, your view of that, but my point was about getting out from under the Indian Act.

Bentley Cheechoo: Let me back up a minute. I think what I said about the governance...it's always been there. I think for 100 years we've been saying we've been trying to get out of the Indian Act. There's new legislation that comes along in 2003 that says, okay, the Indian Act is now going to change to this act tomorrow morning, or whenever it gets passed--if it gets passed.

I think our first nations have been operating as a government all along. Somebody might say, you're doing it under the Indian Act, but that's not so. We've always operated as a government, with a chief and council elected by the people, ever since I can remember.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: The question is, how many bands, how many first nations communities, are close to getting out from under the Indian Act? Do you have some that are no longer going to have that albatross? I think pretty much everybody agrees there are problems with the Indian Act. How far along are your different communities to getting out from under the Indian Act?

Bentley Cheechoo: I guess the point I'm trying to make is that you're saying, you're under the Indian Act. We're viewing it as that we've been operating all along.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: No, I understand that. I guess I maybe should interject at this point.

There are people within first nations communities--accepting your contention that you have been under self-government all along--who have told me this directly, that they've been put down and suppressed for so long that they don't have the capacity. They don't have the upgraded skills and so on that are necessary for self-government--whatever they mean by that.

Are you content with the status quo, which is being under the Indian Act? Whether you like being under it or not is not the question I'm asking. But are you content to be with the status quo until you have, with the Government of Canada, a full-fledged self-government agreement? Would you rather stay in the status quo mode, as things are now?

Bentley Cheechoo: No. I've indicated the Indian Act is not acceptable, and the FNGA is not acceptable.

I think what we need to do is establish a relationship between ourselves and Canada based on how first nations would govern themselves into the future and how that relationship would be respected, with the proper authority to do the things that first nations want to do at the community level to look after their interests.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Do I have any more time?

The Chair: We're there, but I interjected, so you have another 30 seconds.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I have some other questions if we get another round later, but I'll quickly ask this one.

What form of consultation did you attend when you got a look at Bill C-7? Was it among chiefs and councils or did you get out to the communities to do town hall meetings with the band members? Did you have any form of consultation process?

Bentley Cheechoo: We don't consult on things that we reject.

The Chair: Mr. Martin, for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Cheechoo.

As you're the tribal chair of the Matawa First Nations, I guess I'd open by saying that as we speak, the drums are pounding and people are chanting and singing outside of this hotel, adding their voices to the thousands of people across the country who have made their opinion known that they oppose Bill C-7. They're opposed not only to the content of Bill C-7; they're opposed to the whole process of trying to impose rules of governance from the top down, as it were. I thank you for adding your views as well.

The consultation has been a farce right across the country. I'd ask you to speak to that. If there were a genuine consultation and the people from the Matawa First Nations were asked what their priorities would be, would they be what we find in Bill C-7, or would they be something entirely different?

À (1025)

Bentley Cheechoo: I think I can say that we are not opposed to accountability, we are not opposed to transparency, and we are not opposed to good governance. All those things our people demand of us as leaders--they demand them of us.

To my mind, what needs to happen in this country is this. The relationship we will have leading into the future is going to be on the basis of how we respect each other as people, recognizing that first nations have a right to govern themselves. What needs to happen is, that relationship needs to develop between the federal government and the first nations of this country on a basis of saying that there is respect for and recognition of the rights they have. That's what has to happen.

I don't think you can get anywhere imposing something on people. It's not going to happen. We're going to have, I can assure you--and this is not a threat or anything to anybody--disarray for the next hundred years, the same thing as we had under the Indian Act, because no concrete relationship has been established through any process.

The first time this process started, when our national chief asked for a joint process with the government, there were some very serious considerations put to them, and all the things we're talking about today are things that were in there already. But how it got done is what bothered our people. We do not--and I stress that--accept things being put down our throat. We've lived under that long enough.

I can remember my uncles and my grandfather talking about, well, if you won't move on the reserve, we won't give you housing. There will be no more of that. That's enough of that stuff. What needs to happen is that the relationship between ourselves and Canada has to be in place and it has to be one of respecting each other. It's not just one way, and we're not just asking for us to respect Canada but for aboriginals to respect everybody in this country so we move on with our lives, because that's what we require right now.

For the last 25 years I've been involved in advocating for the rights of our people at our organizational level and at our treaty area level. I think I can put most of my time to good use to build better housing, to provide services for my people. I can do that without having to fight or struggle to get there.

Mr. Pat Martin: Let's talk about dollars for a moment. You made a very compelling comment that over $3.2 billion worth of revenue comes in terms of resources such as logging. Money comes out of your first nations area, the traditional area of the Matawa First Nations.

The total budget for DIAND is only $7 billion per year to provide services to a million people. Would you agree that many of the fiscal management problems that do come up are due to trying to do the impossible task of providing basic needs services with a grossly inadequate revenue stream, this because you don't have access to your own resources on your own lands?

The Chair: You may choose to address that issue in your closing remarks; the time has been used up.

Mr. Dromisky, you have five minutes.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Thank you very much.

I've been reading your report here, and I see some statements. I have to challenge one of them, and that's on page 2 in the middle paragraph, where you state that “Bill C-7 does not give us access to lands and resources; it does not give us the authorities of governance we need to design and implement our programs and services”. It's about the portion “to design and implement our programs and services”, which I challenge because I know something that's going on in Matawa that is uniquely different and absolutely outstanding, and that is your quest for centres of--

À (1030)

The Chair: One moment, Mr. Dromisky.

We have to suspend proceedings until the signs are out of the room. We welcome the individuals, we want you in here, but we cannot accept the signs in the room. It's a rule of the House. They don't have to leave, but the signs have to, that's all. I don't make those rules, they are established rules.

The signs are out of the room. Mr. Dromisky, please continue.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Thank you very much.

The model you are using there is really a very effective and outstanding one. In the past we had “opportunity classes” that provided no opportunity for anyone. Then we set up what we call “special education classes”, and in your document you indicate that they were not very successful. However, you took the initiative; the people who are leading in education in Matawa went ahead and introduced a new centre, a new kind of model for dealing with children who have problems in learning, and it's extremely effective.

To me, that's an indication that you do have power, you do have that ability to take the initiative and go ahead and create programs and strategies that will help improve the quality of life for the people who are within your system.

Can you react to what I have just said?

Bentley Cheechoo: Well, that's what I'm saying about what we have done in many areas to improve the education of our young people. The work we've done and the creative aspects of the people who are involved in it are things we have done on our own. We didn't need any legislation to make that take place.

I guess what I'm saying is that we have done all this and we don't need Bill C-7 to do it. That's the point I'm trying to make.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Hubbard.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Good morning, chiefs and everyone.

For the record, can you reply to Mr. Vellacott's question? You made a statement to the effect that we don't consult people on things we reject. Now, consultation has been a big question across the country, and I would hope that in terms of all the chiefs, it wasn't really 600 people who were talking but rather many people who had consulted their people.

Now, perhaps you would just explain. Did I misunderstand you? I think the record will indicate that this was the answer you gave to Mr. Vellacott.

Bentley Cheechoo: Yes, that's the answer I gave.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: And that is what you stand with in terms of consultation?

Bentley Cheechoo: Right.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Thank you.

The Chair: We can have another round of three minutes.

Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I guess you have been partly making that point here, Bentley, in the last responses.

If I understand you correctly, you have particular written codes in place, all the bands. My first question is this. We know the third-party managers have sometimes been referred to as “Indian agents”; that term has been used. Do you have any of your bands under third-party management at present?

Bentley Cheechoo: Yes, I think there are three.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Of the bands you represent, how many have written leadership selection codes, financial management and accountability codes, and administration or government codes? Do they all have them, or are some working on them while others have developed them?

Bentley Cheechoo: Everybody has election procedures for how an election takes place. Some first nations still use, what do you call it, leadership selection under the Indian Act, if you see the list I have provided in my brief. They are still using the Indian Act, and some of the first nations still have their own customs they have developed. Each area for leadership selection is laid out very, very clearly as to how that's going to happen, how people are going to vote both on and off reserve, so those have been done.

In the area of finances, we are developing right now through various stages with the various first nations their own bylaw, if you want to call it that, for financial procedure governance, and also some of the first nations have worked very uniquely. I know one of them; I know Chief Roger Oskineegish's community, and his is one of the first nations under third-party management.

The community itself took the responsibility of looking at the finances of the first nation. However, the community members formed a committee to look at how the finances of that first nation would move forward. It's been about a year and a half that the community committee has been in place, and on April 1, I think, a recommendation is going to come that the Nibinamik First Nation is going to be out of third-party management.

So we're doing things that we think are going to do work for our communities.

À (1035)

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Is it a 50-50 kind of thing in terms of some having these codes on financial management, accountability, and administration of government? Is it that 50% have them and 50% are working on it right now?

Bentley Cheechoo: Everybody is working on it right now; 100% of them are working on it.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Martin, three minutes.

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

The point has been made over and over again across the country that if the minister were serious about elevating the standard of living conditions for first nations people, we wouldn't be doing bureaucratic tinkering with the Indian Act. We would be talking about the allocation and control of our lands and resources, where the real economic opportunity is.

I will ask you to finish your thoughts on the fact that you don't have access to the enormous economic activity going on within your traditional territories. You are dealing with crumbs from the table and $7 billion in total for a million people right across the country. You are faced with the impossible task of trying to meet the basic needs with that kind of revenue.

Bentley Cheechoo: I'll use the treaty process to answer your question. In Treaty No. 9, which was signed by our forefathers and the leaders of your government, the page for non-native people is full, because you have treaty rights. You have everything. You have all the resources that come from our homeland. The page for the aboriginal people is empty. All we have out of the whole process.... When I say all we have, it's not that I'm being disrespectful of what we get. I'm not disrespecting the moneys we get on behalf of our people. What we are saying is that one side seems to get everything, and yet one side is at the poverty line.

Mr. Pat Martin: I would argue that's exactly how it was designed.

Bentley Cheechoo: Yes, exactly.

So unless you somehow go for the middle ground where we start sharing the good resources from our traditional lands in the Matawa area, which are the only lands I can speak for, when is good governance going to happen? When is it going to happen?

Our children want to swim in a swimming pool too; our children want to skate in a hockey rink too, but we can't have these because we don't have the resources to do them. We want to talk about it. You want to talk about governance, how governance is going to work, and how you're going to finance it.

I've been a chief of my community for eight years, and I'm going to be really honest with you and say that for all of those eight years I robbed Paul to pay Peter to make the government work in my community. I had to. Some will say that I misappropriated or mismanaged money; sure they'll say that. But how else was I supposed to do it, to help the people who needed help in my community?

This is the way I'm going to answer the question.

À (1040)

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Hubbard.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: I will go to something different in a minute, Mr. Chair, but along the same line of discussion, is it true that these so-called provincial lands or what are called crown lands are shared with first nations people in some provinces, such as Ontario?

Chief, are you saying that there is no sharing with the provincial government in the province of Ontario? Is that what you're telling me?

Bentley Cheechoo: No.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: It's sort of difficult to believe, Mr. Chair, that the Province of Ontario has not developed some program for this.

But getting back to the bill itself, Chief, you talk about Peter and Paul and all of these other guys you had to deal with.

Bentley Cheechoo: And I'm not referring to that Paul, either.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Charles Hubbard: The fact is that under the present Indian Act, you have a lot of rigmarole going on. There are continual exchanges of documents, and they talk about some 150 different reports you have to make in your relationship with Ottawa.

As for Bill C-7, I think it provides an opportunity to become more open in dealing with Ottawa. It talks about codes, about ways you will define how you operate your first nations, and about elections, which you have a system for already. When you study Bill C-7, which I hope you have, there are steps forward in it versus what happened back in 1876. It was 127 years ago that the Indian Act came about. We've had tremendous changes in our country, not only for your people but also for ours. My wife certainly has a great number of additional rights than what her grandmother had in 1880. But would you people not think it better to try to get rid of that old act and to look at a new way of having your relationships with our federal government?

Bentley Cheechoo: I agree with you 100%. Let's get rid of the Indian Act and let's get rid of the FNGA and create something that's going to work for all of us.

When you talk about the changes that have come in this country, what has happened is that the non-native community, at both levels of government, has now extinguished our rights to a level where we have no access to the lands and resources you're talking about. We don't have access anymore. They are all depleted. For example, I would say 90% in this area, and probably even up to 95%, of the forestry resources have been allocated to multinational companies.

Now, where do we fit in this? This is what we're talking about. Somebody's going to say, you can make arrangements tomorrow morning, if there is an act. I'm going to tell you that we've been trying for the last 25 years to make arrangements with lumber companies and multinationals, but we're not getting anywhere. I don't see where Bill C-7 is going to help us.

If somebody knows something, please tell me, because I want those answers.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We have time for a two-minute round.

Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I previously asked this question this morning as well.

As I understand it, first nations persons are not presently covered by the Canadian Human Rights Act. Regarding your remarks to me about development of these other things, is there talk among the grassroots or have you had discussions among your leadership about some Indian human rights act being developed by your own people to give the kind of basic protections of every individual that is assumed and is in place for other Canadians? Is this something that has come up in discussion?

Bentley Cheechoo: Yes, it's been there, and I think it's there as self-government in 2003 unfolds for our people.

When I made reference earlier to self-government, it was a governance that we've always had, as I said. Now we're in 2003. That is one thing that has always been on the table--how to respect the rights of individuals. I think that is a process that's going to have to fall into the realm of what self-government is going to be. There has to be something in place that protects the rights of individuals, no matter which society you come from.

We would like to put something in place that respects the rights of our people. That's what we want to do. How do we do that?

Respect for our people is not shown in any other place, so we want to do something that's going to work for us. It's our responsibility. We don't want anybody to interfere in it. And that's the way we want to proceed, because I think it's important to us that we put out something that will demonstrate to the world in general that we are capable of doing those things. We don't need anybody to support us or help us in doing that, because I think we can do it ourselves.

À (1045)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Martin, two minutes.

Mr. Pat Martin: You made the point in the brief that seeing Bill C-7 come around seems like some kind of nightmare, like reliving a bad dream--déjà vu all over again. Grand Chief Jourdain said it's the very definition of madness to keep making the same mistake over and over again and expect a different result.

Can you use this last minute you have on my time to express how you feel about the frustration--instead of meaningful change, seeing bills like this come out once again?

Bentley Cheechoo: In 1982, we made great strides in this country. I was part of that process. The rights of our people were recognized in what is probably the highest law of this land about treaty and aboriginal rights.

Through that process I was very confident, as an individual participating in the constitutional talks, that it was a road to a better country. It was a road on which the governments of this land were going to start working with first nations peoples to build a meaningful relationship so that Canada as a country could move forward and prosper and we could all enjoy the benefits of this land.

As you know, post-1982 we all ended up in court fighting over section 35 of the Constitution Act. Through that whole process there were proposed amendments to the Indian Act. I think Minister Irwin came with proposals. But a lot had happened before that.

I remember the Penner report years before--in 1984, I believe, or 1986--and the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. A lot of recommendations have been made about how we need to look at the things we need and how we need to work together.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Ms. Neville, for two minutes.

Ms. Anita Neville: First, I apologize for being out of the room, and I'm sorry if I'm asking a question that you may have addressed already.

I know you have significant plans for economic development in your area, whether it's forestry, energy, construction, or tourism. What I'm wondering is, with all of these plans, do you think the First Nations Governance Act will clarify your legal capacity or help in any way?

I'm also interested in knowing what kind of input your communities have in the development of your economic plans.

Bentley Cheechoo: First of all, you ask if Bill C-7 is going to help us. We've been doing all those things all along, as indicated in another part of the report. We've already borrowed $40 million from the Royal Bank of Canada. Nothing helped us there; we just did it.

Similarly in business, because when we're looking at hydro development or forestry or whatever, the question is, what governance system are you under? Generally when they talk about governance in that regard, it means the corporate structure you are under. What kind of corporate structure do you have? They don't ask us how we are governed on a first nation level.

On the second part of your question about economic development, yes, there was quite an extensive community process on that. I believe it was in...I wasn't around at that time with the organization, but a number of meetings took place. That's how we developed our plan.

As we move into new areas such as forestry development, hydro development, and so on and so forth, I think a lot more has to be done at the community level, because as we develop those initiatives, people in our community need to understand what they're all about and what they mean. A lot of processes need to be in place--such as environment procedures and so on and so forth, and the impact on trappers in our area--things like that, which we need to talk about.

À (1050)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

You have three minutes for closing remarks. We invite you to make those now.

Bentley Cheechoo: First of all, I'd like to thank the committee, Chair, for allowing us the time.

We have demonstrated, as first nations, that we can do many things without Bill C-31. We have, and we will continue to do so. We will not depend on a governance act to make things happen in our area, because we know any time you talk about governance.... And we know the politics, even within our own communities, how development can be slowed down because of the politics. We need to look forward; we need to look ahead.

We have, as I indicated, a housing shortage in our region right now. I believe, if you look at it, it's 297 units that we need. We've exhausted our borrowing power to build more houses, so our route is to look at economic ways to get more resources so we can do those other things. I think the grand chief who spoke before me said we need to get our hands out of the minister's pocket, or whatever he called it, and I agree with that.

Have our efforts completely satisfied all the needs of our people? No, by no means; we have not. We have a lot more to do, a lot more work ahead of us.

But we don't see how those things being proposed right now can help us. If you were to ask me a question about what would be different if this legislation gets passed.... Say it gets passed on Monday, just for discussion's sake, and you asked me, what would be different for you Tuesday morning, Mr. Cheechoo? I would say, nothing. The first nations that are here will still be in dire need of all those things they require. It's not going to change. Nothing's going to change, because it's not going to give us the rightful access we believe we have to the financial resources generated from our homelands and a share of the lands and resources there. It doesn't give us the proper recognition of our authority, of authorities that we're looking for under governance.

When I say that's what we're looking for, it's not the chiefs here. It's what the people are looking for. The people in the non-native society are demanding of you transparency and accountability. Our people are no different; they demand those things of us. We need Canada and Ontario--and to some extent, industry--to respect our rights and negotiate new arrangements and partnerships in order to improve the lives of our people.

Bill C-7 was not developed in a meaningful consultation with our people. A gentleman was asking about this, and I wanted to address what he was talking about. We were not consulted. What are we going to consult our people about?

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

We now invite, from the Nishnawbe Aski Nation, Grand Chief Stan Beardy. I'm told that Grand Chief Beardy will be accompanied by Alanna McKenzie, Elder Jeremiah McKay, Grace Teskey, Kirk Baxter, and Chief Ronald Roundhead.

The clock has been running already for a few seconds, so we urge you to settle in and to make your presentation, and we hope there will be time afterwards for questions. We have one hour together.

À (1055)

Grand Chief Stan Beardy (Nishnawbe Aski Nation): [Editor's Note: Witness speaks in his/her native language]

First of all, I would like to extend my greetings to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources. My name is Stan Beardy and I am the Grand Chief of Nishnawbe Aski Nation.

Nishnawbe Aski Nation is composed of 49 first nations within Treaty No. 9 and Treaty No. 5 areas. Our land mass covers two-thirds of Ontario. As our territory is in the north, most of it is undeveloped, and industry looks forward to us as a new frontier for resource development in forestry, mining, hydro generation, and tourism.

While Nishnawbe Aski Nation territory will be a source of great wealth creation in the province of Ontario, our first nations rank 63rd on the world scale for living conditions.

Today 60% of our members live on reserve, and 66% are under the age of 29. Over the course of the next 25 years, our population is expected to grow by 39%. It is the anticipated population growth that Nishnawbe Aski First Nation must begin to plan for in terms of economic development, housing, social services, and health care.

The current high unemployment rates in our first nations are not acceptable. Our youth demand opportunities to provide for themselves and their families. There is such a sense of hopelessness and despair in our communities that there have been over 200 completed suicides in the last 15 years.

Today I'd like to state the concerns of the Nishnawbe Aski Nation people in relation to the Canadian government's proposed Bill C-7, the First Nations Governance Act. I will not be making complex arguments; I just want to state simple facts.

Nishnawbe Aski chiefs have taken a principled position to oppose the First Nations Governance Act based on the lack of proper consultation and participation of first nations peoples and nations in this process. Nishnawbe Aski Nation has three language groups: the Oji-Crees, the Ojibways, and the Crees. Within those language groups we have only one word for governance, whether it means the federal government, the FNGA, or our own self-government negotiations.

To conduct consultation with NAN first nations on an issue like governance requires resources and time for open dialogue. Nishnawbe Aski has developed a standard for consultation. We have a handbook that was adopted by my chief as a standard for consultation. I have copies here. It's in our own language, Oji-Cree, and Ojibway and Cree. As well, I have an English version that outlines how consultation must happen with the Nishnawbe Aski Nation.

Á (1100)

The First Nations Governance Act is the most offensive piece of legislation that has been drafted and presented for discussion since the 1969 white paper. Bill C-7 represents the continued colonialist attitude of the federal government to deny aboriginal and treaty rights, to the constitutional right to self-government, and furthers the continued oppression of first nations peoples across Canada.

While there is a fiduciary responsibility for Canada to protect the aboriginal and treaty rights of first nations in Canada, we are now faced with the costs of community infrastructure and development while being denied access to natural resources. The current reality is that now first nations have only 5% value-added benefits from resource development, while billions of dollars of goods are and will be taken from our lands.

For the Government of Canada to institute legislation affecting the lives and the aboriginal treaty rights of each status Indian in Canada without allowing meaningful participation of first nations leadership is reprehensible. The first nations peoples of Canada have been educating themselves in post-secondary institutions, and at the same time, first nations communities are beginning to adopt and put into practice traditional governance systems based on our own values and beliefs.

Assimilation through education has not worked for the Government of Canada. Our people have studied your ways of thinking, and instead of assimilating into your society, we are using our better understanding of the western world to enhance and reinforce our own traditional values and beliefs. It is this resurgence of power and authority that the First Nations Governance Act is designed to halt.

Canada is seen by the world as a leader in its standard of living, development, and protection of human rights. The Canada that is known to first nations peoples is very different. I will admit that first nations peoples in Canada are not subject to the kind of inhumane treatment that other aboriginal peoples in the world have been, but we must ask ourselves, to what degree is opposing a people acceptable?

Was taking away our children and forcing them to attend residential school acceptable? Is numbering our people with INAC-issued status cards acceptable?

How acceptable is it for the Government of Canada to have the Indian Act, a federal legislation that outlines who status Indians are and decides who will be members of our communities and our families?

Is the overrepresentation of aboriginal people in the Canadian penal system acceptable? Is the loss of our culture and language acceptable? Is the epidemic of disease and suicide amongst our people acceptable?

Is establishing a reserve system where our people are pushed aside and our laws and resources stolen acceptable?

The First Nations Governance Act will not address any of these issues. It will not bring change to the many social and economic issues that plague our communities. Instead, the oppression of first nations peoples of Canada is carried out not through acts of war and fiscal aggression, but rather, through policy.

It is the Government of Canada in the year 2003 that continues to press for legislation that is in the so-called best interests of the Indians without first nations participation, involvement, or consent. The Government of Canada hides behind a shield of proper government process and legislation to ensure their oppressive actions are hidden from the public eye.

Á (1105)

The First Nations Governance Act is only one piece of legislation. When presented as a single piece of legislation, the First Nations Governance Act seems harmless. However, the Government of Canada plans to bring in a suite of nine pieces of legislation to deal with the Indian problem. A power structure is being put in place by the Government of Canada, where I dare to say that we will have a new national chief whose name will be the Minister of Indian Affairs, now and forevermore. It is the Minister of Indian Affairs who will decide who our commissioners will be, our board members, and the chairmen of the new institutions. The Indian people of Canada will witness our brothers and sisters falling into a patronage system where, if you have been a good Indian, you will be rewarded with a high-ranking position by the government regime.

The aboriginal people of Canada have a special legal relationship with the Crown, and it is this fiduciary responsibility and relationship that Canada is blatantly trying to ignore.

Meaningful legislation that would impact and improve the lives of the first nations people of Canada would include fostering the growth and development of self-determination, as we see fit, within the context of our traditional lands and ways and values. Meaningful legislation would include ensuring access and control of lands and resources, so that we can provide for our families and our future generations. Meaningful legislation would also allow us to strengthen the political systems we already have in place.

The Government of Canada's proposed legislation fails to deliver on any of these essential elements. Canada says that it wants to build stronger, more economically viable first nations communities. However, first nations will not see the return of their lands and resources, or benefits from economic development, or improved social health conditions on our reserves. It is short-sighted to draft policy and legislative change when the wrongs of the past are still having a horrible impact on our communities and amongst our people today.

First nations warrant the recognition and implementation of our government-to-government relationship under the treaty-making process, and the Government of Canada upholding section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982, where first nations have a constitutionally protected right to self-government. The Supreme Court of Canada continues to rule in favour of first nations' right to self-government and rights to resources.

But today I stand before you to stop the First Nations Governance Act. When first nations have a constitutionally protected right to self-government, it is beyond all reasoning why the Government of Canada would unilaterally draft and impose an act of first nation governance without the participation of first nations people. From this fundamental flaw, the question then arises that the First Nations Governance Act will have to be challenged in the court system as unconstitutional.

Furthermore, the Canadian public is being misled to believe that what the government is doing is the right thing.

First nations have always asked for changes to the Indian Act, yet today we are faced with nine pieces of legislation that will further entrench it. First nations people in Canada have suffered under the oppression of the Indian Act for the last 100 years, and we cannot allow this to continue for another 100 years.

On behalf of the people of the Nishnawbe Aski Nation, I ask the Government of Canada to withdraw Bill C-7 and to let us work together in a nation-to-nation process, including all our people, to the honour of first nations, Canada, and the Crown.

Á (1110)

I also urge every member of Parliament to reject the First Nations Governance Act and to help protect the aboriginal treaty rights of Canada's first nations. A vote in the House of Commons in favour of Bill C-7 is a public display of approval of oppression through policy, and first nations people will be watching very closely.

With the ascension of First Nations Governance Act and the other legislation that is to follow, first nations will be placed in an adversarial position. Clearly, the Government of Canada will not protect our aboriginal treaty rights and the choice will be made for Canada to continue the oppression of our people through policy.

There will come a time where our people will have everything taken away from them and will be left with nothing to lose. It is our younger people who will come forward and face you or your children to take what they need to survive and ensure the prosperity of our communities.

The first nations are not opposed to accountability, transparency, and electoral reforms. However, they must be based on our values, principles, and relationship to the land. The real danger of this bill lies in what it excludes: the right to self-government and the right to self-determination, the rights of our people, which they have regardless of your laws and your Constitution.

First nations leaders are being dismissed as fear-mongers, or as denying accountability and transparency. It is these misconceptions that will help the legislation pass. The First Nations Governance Act is an attack on our communities, our way of life, our traditions, language, and our culture, because we are not the same as the municipalities. To continually dismiss our leaders as fear-mongers and thieves is wrong; the issues with the First Nations Governance Act are serious, and we will protect the rights of each band member and each status Indian today and in future generations.

Finally, the time will come when the story of our people will be told and the world will see the failure of the Government of Canada to honour its obligations and responsibilities for their partnership in our treaties.

In closing, meegwetch. Thank you very much on behalf of the people of the Nishnawbe Aski Nation for allowing us to put these comments on public record, Canada's public record, for the future generations of Nishnawbe Aski to see another portion of the struggle our people have fought.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Are there others in your delegation who have a presentation to make, Grand Chief?

Grand Chief Stan Beardy: No, they are here to help me answer if I don't have the answer for a question.

Á (1115)

The Chair: Okay, we will go directly to the questions. We will depend on you, Grand Chief, if you wish to direct an individual to answer. We will let you manage that part, okay?

Grand Chief Stan Beardy: Thank you.

The Chair: All right.

Let's start with a seven-minute round.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Thank you for being here, Grand Chief Beardy.

I was just scanning through the table of contents and parts of the fairly extensive consultation handbook here. It seems pretty impressive, actually. I noticed more in respect to resource development sharing and so on, but it seems to be a very good process there.

Some have said what we are calling consultation in terms of the Bill C-7 was more an attempt to share information, with the department coming to first nations. Nevertheless, as I asked the previous presenters, did you have a chance to get out to some of your communities, and to the various chiefs you represent, and see that they had some form of consultation or meeting to share what Bill C-7 was about and, from a leadership point of view, to take the initiative and say, we think these are the bad things? Did you have that opportunity to get responses or input from people?

Grand Chief Stan Beardy: Yes. Thank you for your question.

First of all, my people can readily understand resource development. That's why it was slanted towards consultation on resource development. But the principle here in the document is that we need a standard of consultation so my people can make informed decisions on any issue facing them, including governance acts.

In terms of your question about whether I had consulted my people, yes, I had. We had petitions where we informed our people about the governance act. We did a number of radio shows through Wawatay. We had phone-in shows so people could ask questions as well. When we made our presentations, we also did a number of them on community radio stations. People were also consulted when we had huge gatherings.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: What feedback were you getting?

Grand Chief Stan Beardy: The grassroots people directed their chiefs to reject the governance act. I already outlined some of the reasons. One was that the timeline allowed us for community consultation was totally inadequate.

As I mentioned earlier, I have three language groups within the land mass, two-thirds of Ontario, and the timeline allotted for us to do a consultation was totally inadequate. I mentioned also that we only have one term for government in our language. It became almost an impossible task to do a proper consultation within the time period allotted to consult our people. Regardless, we had direction from people in our communities that this is not something they can support. I mentioned that they took a principled opposition to the legislation.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Just on another line here, as I have indicated before, from time to time as members of Parliament we will have aboriginal acquaintances, friends from our communities within our particular ridings or maybe outside. Your heart goes out in some of these situations, because you're hearing at least one side of a story from a person who seems to have been treated unfairly in some way in their first nations community. Maybe this unfair treatment related to leadership selection or not getting proper services, be it education, housing, whatever.

We had a lady yesterday out in Winnipeg who was obviously feeling very threatened for her own person, because she was into a band leadership selection thing that she said was rigged. It is all being examined right now.

I guess my point is, do you have appeal processes? If I have a non-aboriginal person come to me, I can refer them to certain ways to have a redress, an ombudsman, if you will. Is that a possibility, to have an ombudsman, or do you have such a person or mechanism already, outside the local first nation or band, where people can go to get some independent, impartial response and an address of their issue?

Á (1120)

Grand Chief Stan Beardy: I'll have Alanna respond, but I would like to make a general comment.

In my opening statement I said we have been under the Indian Act for 130 years. It is only very recently that we began to revisit our own governing structures. At the present time we are engaged with the federal government on what they call self-government negotiations. We have been involved with that for the past three years in preparation stages. Those are some of the things we need to have in place to make sure there are checks and balances on how our governing structures are set up locally.

I'll have Alanna make some additional comments.

Ms. Alanna McKenzie (NAN-Canada Bilateral Protocol Coordinator, Nishnawbe Aski Nation): I just wanted to make a point of clarification in terms of the resources of Nishnawbe Aski Nations. Although other organizations have received funding or resources to conduct consultation, any efforts we have made to try to inform our people about the governance act and all of the other legislation have been done with our own resources. We haven't received any resources dedicated to talking to our people about the governance act.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Do you have an ombudsman or some type of a redress or appeal process? I thought you were going to address that as well. Do you have plans for that? Do you have the means presently to do that when issues come up?

Grand Chief Stan Beardy: At the present time, as much as possible we try to use our own values and traditions in how we deal with disputes. We use what we call circles, and elders, for that purpose.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Do you mean in each respective first nations community?

Grand Chief Stan Beardy: In our first nations communities with our tribal councils, and right now Nishnawbe Aski as a whole will begin to develop a process for how we deal with these community conflicts, if you will call them that.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Right, thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Martin, you have seven minutes.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you, Grand Chief Beardy. Welcome to all of you, your elders, Mr. McKay, and Kirk Baxter, who I suppose is a youth representative. I see you brought your women, elders, and youth with you, which to me certainly adds to the weight of what you say and the degree of importance you assign to dealing with this bill.

I want to go back to some of the earlier comments and agree with you. We believe the public is being misled with a whole campaign of misinformation on what Bill C-7 is really about. It was quite a calculated misinformation campaign to try to convince the Canadian public that the mismanagement of funds on all reserves is so horrendous and has reached such an emergency level that it justifies this heavy-handed imposition of new rules of governance.

What is really underlying the motivation behind Bill C-7 is a wish on the government's part to get out from under its fiduciary responsibilities, which it is finding to be quite onerous and burdensome.

The Chair: I must interrupt, Mr. Martin. I apologize. I must interrupt.

I will ask that the sign be removed, please. There's a sign in the hall. We must ask that it be removed or folded.

Thank you very much. I apologize.

Mr. Pat Martin: We've had an ongoing problem that people are not allowed to bring signage into the room. This is under my protest, for the record. I believe it should be allowed in terms of peaceful demonstration of opinions. There was no consultation in the development of this bill, so at least the opinions can be made known through signage, in my opinion.

Where was I? I believe, and it's been stated by a great many leaders across the country, that the real motivation here is that the federal government is finding that Supreme Court rulings, etc., are getting really expensive, and if they really have to live up to the implementation of the treaty process and their fiduciary obligations, they're tired of it. It's tedious and it's expensive.

So this bill is about diminishing and derogating from inherent aboriginal and treaty rights. I think your fears and your apprehensions are well founded and wise, and I think history will remember you as having envisioned the real intentions about this bill.

I'd ask you to speak a little more about the consultations. We believe true consultation requires accommodation, that it's not just an information session saying, here's what we're going to do to you, what do you think about it? Real consultation is asking what you would like to do together, and some give and take has to take place.

So with whatever time we have left, could you speak to that?

Á (1125)

Grand Chief Stan Beardy: Perhaps I'll ask Grace Teskey. She's sitting here representing the ladies. Also, I'd like to ask that the chief who's with me here briefly respond to your question on the degree of consultation.

As I mentioned earlier, we have set the standard of what consultation is. It's right here on paper and it's in syllabic so my elders and the women and children can understand.

Now, you asked me to what agree that is acceptable. I think if you read it that will partially begin to answer your question.

Ms. Grace Teskey (Nishnawbe Aski Nation): I'm not sure where to begin with this one. You talk about being misled, misinformed, and misjudged, ultimately. For those of us who live in our territories, those lands are our ancestral homelands and we've led countless generations of life there. To the government, those lands are uninhabited and untouched. They're not uninhabited, they're not untouched.

Also, your government says we have a say in anything that occurs, any development. But this is contrary to supporting first nations being able to determine their own development. Having a say in how we define or implement any activity, and the same goes with consultation, is foremost in every activity we endeavour. We talk as a community; our elders lead us, advise us, direct us. It's a holistic picture. If we talk development, we look at the land, the land value. How do we protect the land in meeting the development needs? How do we make it sustainable development? For any kind of development, how do we make it sustainable?

So it's not a question of not consulting, it's always there. In any meeting we have, it's always there. I'll give you a good example. North of 50, there are ten first nations, and growing, that are talking about development, all forms of development, whether energy upgrades, high roads, forestry, mining, environmental protection. And we're talking about these activities in the land mass that we own traditionally, that we belong to forever.

On the other side, we begin to talk to the Minister of Indian Affairs and the bureaucracies, and we say, can we sit at the table? Now we're just dealing with the province. They say, yes, you can have a say. But a say means nothing because we're not allowed to do, or implement, or develop in the manner that protects holistically. They go ahead and subcontract, from the bureaucracy level, other partners of their own to determine whether our ideas are feasible. Yet we can't sit at the same table and be given the opportunity that somebody else, some friend of the government, is allowed to have in terms of a contract. We all know about contracts. We can't access those resources to be able to do ours in a meaningful way, in a self-sustainable way.

It's done all the time. So when we sit at a table and say, here's our definition of how we're going to be self-sustainable, and this is what our people said and this is what they want, all the dialogue has been there, the consultation is there. It goes ahead, and it's something totally different, that doesn't take into consideration the holistic protection of culture and land.

The Chair: Thank you very much. Thank you.

Mr. Godfrey, seven minutes.

Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): Aneen. We're delighted to see you.

Grand Chief Beardy, I'm interested in what alternatives in the area of governance you might come up with.

One of the things we've discovered in our travels is not only the huge variety of conditions of different first nations, but also their success or lack of success in terms of governance and accountability and transparency. It's just tremendous. There are some people who are way ahead and some who are way behind.

Here we are trying to create a piece of legislation that covers all of that. The question is, if we all agree that good governance is important and there's no defence of bad governance, that we all want to be better governed and more transparent, I'm wondering whether your experience can indicate alternatives.

Suppose we didn't have Bill C-7 but we all agreed we'd like to speed up the process of having good governance. Do you think it only works at the level of the individual first nation, or are there ways in which first nations, for example, who have been more successful and gotten there earlier can be helpful to those who are not as far along and who need the help, but not of the Department of Indian Affairs, not of law in that sense, but of experience?

Have you thought through what an alternative way of getting to this goal might be, which would get us there faster than we're currently going?

Á (1130)

Grand Chief Stan Beardy: Meegwetch.

I think when you talk about governance and self-government and also self-determination, as I said in my comments, in order to be self-sufficient to any degree, we need to be able to generate our own revenue and to begin to build an economic base.

I mentioned that the Nishnawbe Aski cover two-thirds of Ontario in terms of land mass, and I also mentioned that north of 50 it's undeveloped and we have opportunity there to tap into the natural resources and to begin to create our own wealth.

One of the other exercises that my chiefs are engaged in is what we call traditional governance. We never gave up our right to self-determination. We never gave up our right to be self-governing. As we watch what's happening to us as aboriginal people who've been under the Indian Act for 130 years, the living conditions and opportunities for my people are not getting any better, so this forces our people to begin to revisit what we had before, based on that treaty-making process we made with the Crown.

When we made the treaty with the Crown, we agreed to two things. One is that we would have peaceful coexistence. The other is that we would share the natural resources and also share in the benefits of the wealth creation from those natural resources.

So I think what you're asking me, then, is what do we do to address good government? I think in the short term what we're saying is, yes, we can work together to look at what needs to be done with the Indian Act. It has to only tell for the immediate, but in the longer term what we're saying is that, under section 35 of the Constitution Act, we want to work with the Confederation on a nation-to-nation basis so that we can develop an economic base to begin to meet the needs of our people.

Mr. John Godfrey: Maybe just take it down to your own experience as a community. Over the years, how have you found ways of improving administrative efficiency, reassuring people who might want to come from the outside that this is a well-run community and they would like to invest here, even without changing the Indian Act or Bill C-7? From your own practical experience, even under the current act, how does one improve governance without outside pressure?

Grand Chief Stan Beardy: How do you improve the current situation is what you're asking me?

Mr. John Godfrey: Yes. In other words, just within your own community. What we've discovered is that some communities, despite the Indian Act, despite their lack of resolution of treaties, despite the lack of resources, have found ways of improving transparency, of being more accountable, of having their books open and all that sort of stuff, and others haven't. I'm wondering whether your experience would lead you to make some observations about how that occurs even despite the Indian Act.

Grand Chief Stan Beardy: Maybe I can respond to that.

I was a chief at Muskrat Dam for over ten years before I came to this position, and with Muskrat Dam, the community worked because we had checks and balances to make sure there was good accountability and transparency. The way we did it was that we engaged all the people in decision-making. I think also in terms of where some communities are at in terms of development, it has to do with how close they are to resource development. I'll explain.

In some of the communities where resource development happened and the people didn't participate or get any benefit, they experienced a lot of social problems as a result. Again, that wasn't directly our doing; it had to do with our lack of participation in the development.

Á (1135)

Mr. John Godfrey: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you. We have time for a four-minute round.

Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I'll pass.

The Chair: Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you.

I'd be interested, Chief Beardy, in hearing you speak more about the resource management, or the benefits associated with building a base of wealth from access to your own resources. And the one example I'd point out is that in the province of Manitoba, where I'm from, we've just signed a co-management deal for the next hydro project where the first nation close to there, the Cross Lake band, will actually be an equity partner in that hydro dam. So for every unit of energy generated at that dam forever, a share of the money will go to the band. They'll have an equity share in the development.

If the minister was serious about elevating the standards of first nations, would you rather see us concentrating this energy today on negotiating that kind of resource management issue?

Grand Chief Stan Beardy: Yes, because in my comments I outlined the critical areas of frustration and concern to my first nation people. I mentioned a high rate of suicide amongst my young people. I mentioned high unemployment. I mentioned under-resourcing of pretty well all the program services.

When we look at the economic state of the country, I can assure you that, as marginalized people, we are always the first to experience any cutbacks, and I don't see any improvement under the reserve system in looking into the next 100 years. We are saying that we already have a relationship with the federal government through the treaty making. We are supposed to be partners in the development of natural resources as well as in the benefits of the wealth creation coming from our traditional territories.

I also stated that we never gave up that title to those natural resources. We are asking the government to have a partnership with us on resource development so that we can become self-sufficient.

Mr. Pat Martin: There is one last thing about money. These are the most sweeping and comprehensive changes to the Indian Act in a generation, in 50 years. Yet there was no money made available to you to develop a position paper on these massive changes, no money made available to you to do a true consultation. Yet, if you were in favour of this, the minister would have given you all kinds of money if you had got on board.

Do you want to speak to that for a moment?

Grand Chief Stan Beardy: Yes. I mentioned in my comments that the legislation is flawed. It doesn't go far enough to begin to deal with our understanding of the partnership that we are supposed to have with the government.

For example, when you talk about new legislation coming in and talk about the ability for the first nation to tax.... We also had policies coming down where we were asked to cost-share capital projects, and we had to provide our own source of revenue. I also mentioned in my opening comments that at the present time we have only 5% value-added, and that if you have those indicators already there, then there is nothing in this legislation that would improve the living conditions of my people.

At the end of the day, we will be forced to tax the miseries of our own people to try to provide the basics for our people.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you.

Á (1140)

The Chair: On the government side?

Ms. Neville.

Ms. Anita Neville: Thank you very much, Grand Chief, for your presentation, and to all those who have come with you today.

You indicate in your brief that first nations are not opposed to accountability, transparency, and electoral reforms; however, they must be based on your values, principles, and relationship to the land. I understand that you have had consultations on the bill. I'm wondering whether in your consultations there have arisen issues related to accountability, transparency, and a need for disclosure of the band. Have they come forward? How have they been dealt with? And have there been leadership disputes that have come forward in your communities as a result of unclear or custom election codes?

Grand Chief Stan Beardy: Thank you for your question.

In terms of accountability by my leadership at the individual community level, most of my chiefs have what they call annual community meetings or regular community meetings where they provide the information or ask about the questions or concerns of their community membership. Also, we have to keep in mind that all my first nations have to provide audits that are available to the membership, that outline how moneys are spent.

In terms of conflicts with leadership selection, that is becoming a problem again through the Corbiere decision, as per the Supreme Court, and again that's not of our own making. We are stuck with that problem, where the Corbiere decision is creating a lot of conflict, and we are left with that challenge without any adequate resources to begin to resolve that.

Ms. Anita Neville: Can you tell us a little more about that? How is it creating the issues?

Grand Chief Stan Beardy: Well, at the present time, because a lot of my first nations have custom elections, we haven't fully developed all the requirements to include the core decisions to make sure that what is expected of us is also implemented.

As the Corbiere decision was made that all off-reserve people had to vote, there were never adequate resources made available to the first nation to do a proper consultation with our people to make sure their election codes met the requirements.

The Chair: Thank you.

We can do another three-minute round. Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I'm fine. I'll pass.

The Chair: Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: You mentioned that you felt that Bill C-7 could lead to further patronage appointments, that the new national chief would really be the Minister of Indian Affairs because of the increased authority that this bill gives to him. If you're good, you'll get a patronage appointment; if you're bad, you'll get your hands slapped and be starved. That's a very serious aspect of the bill that's being raised before us.

Perhaps you or any of your guests could speak to that for a moment.

Alanna McKenzie: When we make that statement, it has to do with looking at all of the pieces of legislation--Bill C-7, Bill C-19, Bill C-257, and Bill C-6. We see a power structure being put into place, where it is the Minister of Indian Affairs who will choose who the commissioners are, who the board members and the chairmen of all of the new institutions that are coming forward are. There is no real inclusion or clause for first nations to be involved in who these people are. And that is the concern.

Mr. Pat Martin: That's a very valid point. I guess it has more to do with Bill C-19, though, in this case with the new financial institutions.

Alanna McKenzie: Bill C-19, Bill C-257, which is the First Nations Governance Review Act, and Bill C-6, with the specific claims, the commissions....

Á (1145)

Mr. Pat Martin: Very true. Thank you.

I'd ask you to speak to the theme we've been hearing about that's been developing right across the country. And it ties into the Harvard study on first nations governance, that good governance codes without sovereignty are about as useless as sovereignty would be without good governance. In other words, you don't put the cart before the horse. We should be negotiating sovereignty as per the treaties first, and good governance can and will follow, or already has followed, from that.

Is that a concept you want to speak to?

Grand Chief Stan Beardy: I touched on that earlier when I talked about the past, before Columbus became lost and we discovered him on our shores, when we had our own governing systems in place. Because we've been under the oppression of the Indian Act, we've forgotten a lot of how we used to look after ourselves, because we are forced to look at how we're going to meet the future needs of our children. We had to revisit all of our past practices and begin to revive how we used to govern ourselves.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you.

Am I out of time?

The Chair: There are three seconds left.

Ms. Karetak-Lindell.

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

Thank you for welcoming us to your land.

I come from a northern part of Canada. I represent Nunavut, and our elections are pretty well set up--the national system. So what I'm interested in is that when you have federal elections and provincial elections, those are run by an electoral system that's different from yours. When you do your band elections, I imagine it's under a different system.

When people see the different systems for your MLA and your MP, what happens if the people in the community decide they might like to try that way of electing their chief and council? Would that be an option open to them?

Grand Chief Stan Beardy: I think at the present time, because we're in the process of reviving our traditional governance systems, we use the election systems that are being used anywhere else. Whether we have a community meeting, a nomination, and then we have candidates and we have a secret ballot...most of the first nations use that method at the present time.

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: Okay, so you're saying the election codes that are used across Canada, as far as nomination deadlines are concerned and people being able to be at the counting, representatives at the counting, and the electoral list, making sure everybody is a valid voter, those are now carried out in your band election?

Grand Chief Stan Beardy: Yes.

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you. That brings us to closing remarks. You have a fair amount of time, so please proceed.

Grand Chief Stan Beardy: Meegwetch.

As I stated in my opening comments, I am not here to argue about the legal aspects of the proposed act. I presented what is not in the act, and that is what the concern is for my people. I also mentioned that FNGA is only one piece of legislation. It is accompanying other pieces of legislation that will have a major impact on the lives of my people.

If you are talking about governance, I mentioned earlier that one needs a land base to begin to create an economic base to generate the revenue necessary to address the needs of our people. What we see happening with this bill is that it has been suggested that we will be under the control and oppression of the Indian Act for another hundred years. When we look at history for the past 130 years, my people are the poorest compared to the rest of Canadian society. If we cannot access the wealth creation on our traditional territories, then I am afraid things will not get any better for us.

We are asking for a treaty with the Crown. In the treaty, our aboriginal rights are recognized in the Constitution, section 35. We are asking the federal government to begin to look at how the partnership can be shaped so that we can be part of Confederation.

When we talk about how we want to govern ourselves, my communities are looking at how we used to do it in the past. We'll begin to put it on paper so that we can begin to look at it again and we can be self-determining in the near future. I think what is most important here is that we are asking the federal government that section 35 of the Constitution Act be worked on so that we can have a truer partnership with the Canadian government.

Also, we know that we are being marginalized. Every time there are cutbacks, we are the first place to receive those cutbacks. At the present time, although we try to administer a lot of our own programs, the majority of the programs are totally inadequate in how they are resourced.

We have very poor housing in our communities. We have some homes where you have a dozen or more people staying in a three-bedroom house. We have a high incidence of epidemics, diabetes, and heart conditions. There is a high rate of unemployment amongst my young people.

It becomes very critical that if we are going to talk about self-determination, self-government, or self-governance for my people, my people must be able to access the natural resources from their traditional territories. They can use them and begin to develop them for economic returns that are essential to provide opportunities for future generations.

Those are my comments. Again, thank you very much.

Á (1150)

The Chair: We thank you very much for a very helpful presentation.

I now invite, as an individual, Mr. Tom Wassaykeesic.

Welcome, Mr. Wassaykeesic. We have ten minutes together. We invite you to make your presentation. If you allow time for a complete round, we'll have questions but you may use your time as you wish.

Mr. Tom Wassaykeesic (As Individual): Thank you for inviting me to make a presentation. I don't have a written presentation, but I do have a verbal presentation to make about Bill C-7, which used to be referred to as Bill C-19.

First of all, I want to talk about the whole process itself. In spite of the assertion of the Department of Indian Affairs and Minister Nault that this entire exercise from the beginning was being done in consultation with the first nations of this country, I don't think that's the case. I think it's still being driven from the top down, just as in the past. I don't understand why the government keeps on trying to impose something on us and saying that they know what is best for us.

We had some consultation, or at least a chance to provide some input. For example, they had the website. A lot of people in my community don't have access to the website because they don't have a computer. They also had a toll-free number, which was a little odd considering the fact that, for the majority of the people in my community, English is not their first language, nor is French.

A lot of the people in our communities believe that the chief and council play the role of spokespersons for the band. So when something needs to be said or something like this needs to be dealt with, it usually goes to the chief and council. They act as the spokespersons. If the minster was attempting to reach the grassroots, I don't think he had very good success in doing that primarily for that reason, that the chief and council act as spokespersons.

I like to ask my own questions and get my own answers rather than necessarily going through the chief and council. I know a little bit about how the system works, so I can make use of it. That's what I am doing here.

I believe that the minister and the Department of Indian Affairs, the proponents of this legislation, have ulterior motives for wanting to pass this bill. One, they want to get out of the Indian business, and two, they want to turn over everything to the first nations people themselves so that they can administer their own poverty and hopelessness. Since 1969 the federal government has wanted to get out of the so-called Indian business. They want the first nations to just flounder along.

Á (1155)

The Indian Act delegates authority to the chief and council. It flows from the minister--the minister has that authority under the Indian Act--so we have delegated authority. The chief and council's power does not come from the people in the community; it comes from that Indian Act legislation. The Minister of Indian Affairs has more authority, more power, than all the chiefs and councils across Canada put together, simply by virtue of the Indian Act. Until things change, until we have a better system of selecting our leaders or electing them, nothing will ever change.

I was on council myself for four years, and I can tell you that a lot of times I felt that I was just the administrator rather than an elected political leader. I should have been fighting for our rights, advancing aboriginal and treaty rights, rather than simply doing administrative work for the federal government, which a lot of times it seemed like what I was doing. I know some of my colleagues at the time felt the same way.

This thing here, this legislation, is basically the same thing. You're imposing more administrative duties, management duties, on us. When you're the chief and council, that's not what you're there for, to administer, to be a manager. You're there to do a job, to protect the people's rights, to advance their rights, and to work in their best interests.

I think the opponents of this legislation and the proponents both have their ulterior motives. One wants to see it advanced, be implemented; the other wants to see it stopped. Both sides should seriously look at themselves and see what they're in there for. What is it they're in there for? Is it to make themselves look good? Is it to make themselves become famous or something? Or is it because they want to do something, because they actually want to make things better for the first nations people, especially on reserves? What is it they really want?

Does Mr. Nault want to go down in history as the person who finally solved the so-called Indian problem D.C. Scott talked about back in the early 1900s? Or do some of the chiefs...? I know there are some well-meaning chiefs across Canada who do have a genuine concern about their people, but I also believe there are some chiefs across this country who are in it for nothing but themselves. That's all it is.

That's what I say. I'm neither for nor against, but I'd like to see some changes, because things can't go on the way they are going in the communities. We need to have better leadership, more accountable leadership. We need chiefs and councils who are willing to sit down with their people, not just in the community meetings but also as individuals, one on one. They need to be able to answer any questions, to be able to listen to opinions, and to be open-minded and say, maybe I don't agree with you but I am willing to listen to you.

We not only need better leadership, we need more access to resources off reserve. We, the first nations, with the limited land we have on reserves.... The elders call reserves shokona-gunn. Shokona-gunn means leftover land, and that's basically what it is. You go to any reserve, especially in northwestern Ontario, and you'll see that the land that's utilized as a reserve for people to live on, to work on, is nothing but leftover land. Basically, it's land the Province of Ontario didn't want, nor did the federal government want it for any other purposes.

Â (1200)

We need to have access to off-reserve resources. We're continuously denied off-reserve resources. My understanding of Treaty No. 9 is that it was supposed to be a 50-50 deal, share and share alike. The Province of Ontario wasn't supposed to step in and say, no, you can't do this once you step over the reserve boundary.

We need access to those resources, enough adequate resources to make our communities better. We need to build an economic base for our communities. We don't have that, at least we don't have it in our community, and I believe that if we can have access to off-reserve resources, we can build an economic base for our community. Once we achieve economic power, from there we can go on to achieving our political power.

But the way things are right now, it's not working. Something needs to change, but it's not going to change. Nothing is going to change under the Indian Act, nothing is going to change under the First Nations Governance Act, and nothing is going to change as long as there's a lot of intransigence on both sides. I'd like to be able to see both sides work together without a lot of nitpicking and all that.

The Chair: Well said. We thank you very much; your time is up.

I want to commend you for taking eleven and a half minutes, which is good. You filled it without a script, and I congratulate you for that. I commend you for your courage and your foresight in registering, seeing what's on, and putting your own stamp on the consultations.

We thank you very much.

Â (1205)

Mr. Tom Wassaykeesic: Does anyone have any questions?

The Chair: No, our time is up, sorry.

Geri Grey, would you please come forward for a spontaneous presentation of two minutes.

Geri Gray (As Individual): Thank you for taking this time to listen to my testimony. I will speak from my heart, so you will know it is the truth.

To the best of my knowledge, the consultation process used to develop the First Nations Governance Act is flawed, misrepresenting, and lacks proper inclusive consultation with the people governed under the Indian Act.

I am an Indian under the Indian Act. My number is 1710086301. I am a student. I am a single mother of two teenage children. I attended two information sessions and participated in one consultation process.

In order for me to attend the consultation meeting, it was mandatory that I identify my band and myself. Beside my name I wrote “opposed”. My input was welcome but restricted to questions and answers regarding only the first section slated for change in the Indian Act.

Sections 74 through 80 would be elections of band councils, sections 81 through 86 are powers of the band council, and section 87 is taxation.

My answers to the questions prompted were recorded to promote favourable responses to the First Nations Governance Act. During the meeting I asked for three answers and received none. I don't consider this consulting, because I was not given any answers to any of my questions. The answers I did give in response to the questions asked were manipulated and not entirely my statements.

I also wrote to the Minister of Indian Affairs, the Honourable Robert Nault, and asked him the same three questions I asked at the consultation meeting. To this day I have not received an answer. I would like to ask where the minister's accountability to the people he represents is, because I have not heard any answers from him or from any of his representatives.

I am only one individual who attempted to consult my representative, the Minister of Indian Affairs. There is no accountability to the people where he is concerned. I would like to ask that the consultation process be amended to include elders, children, chiefs, and other individuals governed under the historical Indian Act.

The Chair: Thank you very much. We've allowed you three minutes--an extra minute. If you wish to table the document, it will be translated and distributed to all members. The choice is yours. Thank you.

Is Chief Wilfrid King from the Gull Bay First Nation here? Welcome, Chief.

These are two-minute presentations. Of course, you know you could have had half an hour.

Chief Wilfred King (Gull Bay First Nation, As Individual): Mr. Chairman, with your indulgence, as the chief of Gull Bay First Nation, I think this committee can afford me a little more than two minutes.

The Chair: Sir, you will get the extra minute that I allotted today, but--

Chief Wilfred King: The speaker in front of me got 11 minutes, and as a duly and democratically elected chief, I think I should be afforded more time than that.

The Chair: I understand that. We wrote you a letter saying that if you registered you would have half an hour.

You have three minutes, and we're starting now.

Chief Wilfred King: I'm here today because the chiefs of the Robinson Superior Treaty have no representation. That is why I have put myself on today's agenda to speak on some issues.

First of all, my name is Chief Wilfred King of the Gull Bay First Nation. Gull Bay First Nation was a signatory to the Robinson Superior Treaty in 1850. In fact, it was our forefathers who negotiated the treaty on our behalf. One of the instrumental issues that is first and foremost is that the treaty was based on a nation-to-nation relationship.

I do not have a written script here in front of me, so I am speaking as my forefathers did, oratorically. I think it's very important that you listen to all people who want to make these presentations here today, and afford them the opportunity.

I do not agree personally with the First Nations Governance Act. I do agree with the issue of accountability. I agree there should be openness and transparency. However, when we signed the treaty in 1850 it was done on a nation-to-nation basis. Part of that relationship was a sharing of natural resources. Secondly, we signed it in our own right, and as a nation we've never surrendered our right to self-government.

First and foremost, our leadership were selected by the people because they wanted leaders who truly governed them to the best of their ability. I am a recently elected chief, and I think the whole process is flawed in many respects because it doesn't take into account the lives of our people living in our communities. Our people continue to live in squalor and abject poverty. I think the Government of Canada must recognize that they owe an obligation to our people living in our communities.

Our communities have an over 80% unemployment rate. We have a housing shortage. To add insult to injury, our first nation is in third-party management. Of all dollars allocated to our community through band support, one-third is given to our third-party manager. We have to live with that. Our third-party manager is getting over $220,000 on our behalf. All they are doing is signing cheques on our behalf, yet our people have to suffer in our community because of it.

One of the key issues is that in order for us to have true self-government we need to have access to the natural resources. We have to sever our ties to the purse strings of the federal and provincial governments. We need to have direct access to those resources so we can make lives better for people in our community.

I know there were many opportunities in the past to deal with these issues, with the inclusion of section 35 in the Canadian Constitution Act. I truly believe that our right to self-government is inherent. It is not contingent upon the right or will of the sovereign of Canada, nor is it contingent upon the blessing of the Department of Indian Affairs or the minister.

I feel, as a leader of our community, that this process has to recognize that there are people out there who are suffering as a result of the pleasure of the Crown in not doing anything on behalf of our people. There has to be real meaningful consultation. There also has to be consultation with all members of the community.

I am the first to raise issues about accountability because I truly believe in the accountability of our leaders, chief and council.

Â (1210)

The Chair: It's unfortunate that I have to cut you off at this point. I did give you four minutes, which is the most I have given anybody else.

Chief Wilfred King: Well, again, I—

The Chair: I'm sorry, but time's up.

For the record, all chiefs received a letter offering an opportunity to present, and those who responded were allowed 30 minutes. Another point I wish to make is that even those who were given an hour and a half and who represented national organizations were asked to make a five-minute presentation. So I feel justified in having allowed four minutes—although I broke the rules. I hope that members will forgive me.

Chief Theron McCready from the Poplar Point Ojibway First Nation. Out of courtesy to you, sir, I will give you four minutes too.

Chief Theron McCrady (Poplar Point Ojibways First Nation, As Individual): Bonjour, bonjour.

My name is Chief McCready. I believe in equality, which I haven't received yet from the white government or from first nations. I have been a chief since 1988 and have put up a few roadblocks in this time, going to court about nine times. This was just to protect our burial grounds, for which we received compensation of $180,000. But this is beside the point.

When I spoke to Bud Wildman in the year 1991, he said that, after all the proceedings and the court cases go, the government would deal with me. I think the government is full of bullshit, because nobody has ever come to deal with me. I belong to the Robinson Superior Treaty of 1850, and I believe that if you government people read this 1850 treaty closely, it says that we have never given up our waters. We have never given up Lake Nipigon, so I believe in Lake Nipigon, and I believe in my people who I represent, and I believe in the chiefs in our area. But sometimes I don't believe in the chiefs elsewhere, especially the grand chiefs, because they are only acting as the governments fare and are going the same way as them.

This morning I had a run-in with one of the grand chiefs, who asked one of the chiefs here, Mr. Gladu from Sand Point, to leave the meeting because he wasn't welcome. But this is our territory; we are Ojibway people and he had no right to do that. So I told him so, saying, if you want to throw somebody out, you come and tell us and we will do it for you, but until that time, you hold your position and we will hold ours.

But as I said, I have been trying to get recognition from the chiefs. I went three times. The first time I got thrown out over a burial ground. I wasn't quite well liked because of my radical behaviour—so they say. I went to Toronto twice.

This morning I was laughing at this letter I received about a rally for solidarity, which is a farce to me. It says solidarity. Who are they talking about? Who are they talking about? They're sure not talking about me, because I haven't got fair representation from any of the chiefs. This is a fact, a true fact. Then they have another band, the Poplar Point Ojibway, whose members come from Gull Bay, and the other one comes from Rocky Bay. So this chief hasn't any members, so what are they talking about?

Then my other friend here from Sand Point is recognized by the Robinson Superior Treaty, and he's also recognized by the union.

So you think your people have trouble. I have trouble. I have trouble with the government and the chiefs of Ontario.

Thank you.

Â (1215)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Chief Theron McCrady: You don't want to ask any questions?

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

Chief Theron McCrady: I'm willing to answer them. And if you wanted this document to read--

The Chair: If you have a document you want to table, you can. If it's the treaty, we have access to copies.

Is Chief Dwight Sutherland here?

Chief Paul Gladu, from Sand Point First Nation, for four minutes.

Chief Paul Gladu (Sand Point First Nation, As Individual): I won't take up my four minutes.

I was elected as councillor in 1991 and I was elected as chief in 2000. I had a disturbance before my two years was up, and that disturbance went on to overlap my two years. The opposition came in and had a meeting with 10 people at a house, and Indian Affairs recognized them, so we have a chief for Sand Point. I disputed that, and here we are in a dispute with two chiefs.

We are following the governance. In our governance we would give the documents to Robert Nault and...I don't know how many people we give our documents to. I really think they haven't been thoroughly looked at. But we're asking that our documents be looked at, and we are asking that the election processes we follow through our election code be recognized.

It was brought up from the grassroots at a band meeting to identify the electoral officer, to go ahead on a nomination meeting, and down the road, on April 5, to have the election. We've done all that. The youth, the elders--they've done all that. Now we're asking, on April 5, when we come to the office, whether it's me or the other chief, to be recognized. We are all under our band custom.

We sent the audits in for the two years I was running it, and they've been accepted by Indian Affairs. We went from a 48% deficit to a 6% deficit. We were told that wasn't the problem. Our accountability wasn't a problem; it was the dispute.

Well, is this what we're going to do? Is this part of Robert Nault's governance, where a person can have a meeting at a house, with 10 people, and then run to Indian Affairs with a band resolution saying he's the chief, and they'll recognize him?

I had three processes. I had names on documents, membership, and that was neglected. Okay, now we've ratified our election code. We're following it right to the letter, and we hope that on April 5 that will be recognized by Indian Affairs. Robert Nault's letter to the youth, which I have in front of me, says that Indian Affairs does not get involved, yet he recognized 10 people at a meeting.

That's all I have to say here. Thank you for your time.

Â (1220)

The Chair: We thank you very much.

Is Chief Dwight Sutherland in the room?

Is Wallace McKay from the Windigo First Nations Council here and prepared to present now?

Is Chief Dean Cromarty from the Wunnumin Lake First Nation here and prepared to present now?

Colleagues, we will adjourn until 1 o'clock.