AANR Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, March 25, 2003

»

1700

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

Grand Chief Fernand Chalifoux (President, Native Alliance of Quebec)

The Chair

Grand Chief Fernand Chalifoux

»

1705

»

1710

The Chair

Mr. Patrick Brazeau (Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, Native Alliance of Quebec)

The Chair

Grand Chief Fernand Chalifoux

The Chair

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

»

1715

Grand Chief Fernand Chalifoux

Mr. Yvan Loubier

Grand Chief Fernand Chalifoux

Mr. Yvan Loubier

Grand Chief Fernand Chalifoux

Mr. Yvan Loubier

Grand Chief Fernand Chalifoux

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

Grand Chief Fernand Chalifoux

The Chair

Grand Chief Fernand Chalifoux

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

Grand Chief Fernand Chalifoux

Mr. Pat Martin

»

1720

Grand Chief Fernand Chalifoux

The Chair

Grand Chief Fernand Chalifoux

The Chair

Grand Chief Fernand Chalifoux

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Grand Chief Fernand Chalifoux

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

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

»

1725

Grand Chief Fernand Chalifoux

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell

Grand Chief Fernand Chalifoux

»

1730

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Grand Chief Fernand Chalifoux

Mr. Pat Martin

Grand Chief Fernand Chalifoux

Mr. Pat Martin

Grand Chief Fernand Chalifoux

»

1735

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.)

Grand Chief Fernand Chalifoux

Mr. Larry Bagnell

Grand Chief Fernand Chalifoux

Mr. Larry Bagnell

Grand Chief Fernand Chalifoux

Mr. Larry Bagnell

Grand Chief Fernand Chalifoux

»

1740

Mr. Larry Bagnell

The Chair

Mr. Larry Bagnell

Grand Chief Fernand Chalifoux

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Grand Chief Fernand Chalifoux

Mr. Pat Martin

Grand Chief Fernand Chalifoux

»

1745

The Chair

Mr. Larry Bagnell

Grand Chief Fernand Chalifoux

Mr. Larry Bagnell

Grand Chief Fernand Chalifoux

»

1750

Mr. Larry Bagnell

Grand Chief Fernand Chalifoux

The Chair

Grand Chief Fernand Chalifoux

The Chair

Grand Chief Fernand Chalifoux

The Chair

Grand Chief Fernand Chalifoux

»

1755

The Chair

Ms. Michèle Audette (President, Quebec Native Women Inc.)

The Chair

Ms. Michèle Audette

¼

1800

The Chair

Ms. Merilda St-Onge (Quebec Native Women Inc.)

¼

1805

The Chair

Ms. Ellen Gabriel (As Individual)

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

Ms. Michèle Audette

¼

1810

Mr. Yvan Loubier

Ms. Michèle Audette

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Michèle Audette

¼

1815

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Michèle Audette

Ms. Ellen Gabriel

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Ellen Gabriel

Mr. Pat Martin

¼

1820

The Chair

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell

Ms. Michèle Audette

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell

Ms. Michèle Audette

The Chair

¼

1825

Ms. Michèle Audette

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell

Ms. Michèle Audette

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell

Ms. Michèle Audette

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

Ms. Michèle Audette

¼

1830

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Michèle Audette

¼

1835

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Michèle Audette

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Larry Bagnell

Ms. Michèle Audette

¼

1840

Ms. Ellen Gabriel

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

Ms. Michèle Audette

¼

1845

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Ellen Gabriel

¼

1850

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell

The Chair

Ms. Michèle Audette

The Chair

Ms. Michèle Audette

¼

1855

The Chair

Ms. Michèle Audette

The Chair

Ms. Carole Brosseau (Lawyer, Research and Legislation, "Barreau du Québec")

The Chair

Ms. Carole Brosseau

½

1900

½

1905

Ms. Renée Dupuis (Commissioner, Indian Claims Commission)

Ms. Renée Dupuis

½

1910

½

1915

½

1920

Ms. Carole Brosseau

½

1925

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

Ms. Renée Dupuis

Mr. Yvan Loubier

Ms. Carole Brosseau

½

1930

Ms. Renée Dupuis

Mr. Yvan Loubier

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Yvan Loubier

Ms. Carole Brosseau

Mr. Yvan Loubier

Ms. Carole Brosseau

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Renée Dupuis

½

1935

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Renée Dupuis

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Renée Dupuis

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Renée Dupuis

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Renée Dupuis

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Carole Brosseau

Mr. Pat Martin

½

1940

Ms. Carole Brosseau

The Chair

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell

Ms. Renée Dupuis

½

1945

Ms. Carole Brosseau

Ms. Renée Dupuis

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell

Ms. Renée Dupuis

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell

The Chair

Ms. Carole Brosseau

½

1950

Ms. Renée Dupuis

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources

---

NUMBER 054

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, March 25, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

»  (1700)  

[Translation]

    The Chair (Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.)): Note to Publications on affiliation: The Chair (Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.))

    On the public hearings agenda, we have Bill C-7, An Act respecting leadership selection, administration and accountability of Indian bands, and to make related amendments to other Acts.

    We are pleased to have the Native Alliance of Quebec, represented by its president, Grand Chief Fernand Chalifoux. I see you are accompanied by Patrick Brazeau. Could you tell us Mr. Brazeau's responsibilities? We will be together for an hour. We invite you to make a presentation, which will be followed by the period of questions by committee members.

    Grand Chief Fernand Chalifoux (President, Native Alliance of Quebec): Although I have a French name, Mr. Chairman, I was raised on the Kitigan Zibi Reserve for part of my life; that's why I find it easier to speak English. So we're going to make our presentation in English.

    The Chair: That's not a problem. I've been taking part in public hearings for nearly four weeks now, and, for the first time, I'll have the opportunity to use my mother tongue.

[English]

    Please continue.

    Grand Chief Fernand Chalifoux: Even though we did put a full written submission to the commission, I have an oddball way of doing things sometimes, and sometimes at the last minute I decide to make changes.

    The submission, as such, stands. However, I will not read the submission as such. I will be making other comments that I feel are relevant to the people I represent and what we got out of the information sessions we did across the province of Quebec.

    I will, however, read the introductory page.

    The Native Alliance of Quebec has consistently sought to be fully engaged in the response by the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada to the Supreme Court decision in the Corbiere case for both the so-called phase one consultation and for the broader phase two process to address Minister Nault's first nations governance initiative.

    Like many Indian Act-based organizations in Quebec, the NAQ has always accepted the need to participate in this initiative and we have repeatedly offered ourselves as partners. However, our desire for inclusion and our offer of partnership has not been well received, either by the Indian Act chiefs or by the department's regional office.

    It is important for this committee to understand that the Department of Indian Affairs and its regional office in Quebec has largely excluded the NAQ, representing over 20,000 first nations people in Quebec, from effective participation in the process over the past two years. We continue to want to participate, and for that reason we appear before the committee to offer our views and the views of our constituencies on Bill C-7.

    However, I wish to be clearly understood. Our participation in these hearings is aimed at protecting the interests of our constituents, not to validate or ratify what for us was a disturbing and disrespectful experience with INAC's so-called consultation process.

    There are two reasons the Native Alliance of Quebec got involved. We got involved in the hope of improving the situation of our off-reserve status members by defending their right to vote in band elections and hopefully be represented at the band level, their right to be informed on whatever is going on in their bands, and their right to be better served by band programs and services. Not that we're elected in the province of Quebec as leaders of the NAQ to represent status Indians. It's quite the contrary. We represent within our organization a very limited number of the 18,500 status Indians who live off the reserve. However, we are concerned by the problems these people have, and the reason we're concerned is that many times these people come to us for services we cannot offer them.

    There are a certain number of Bill C-31 status Indians who have chosen to remain members of the Native Alliance of Quebec to continue building a better future for their children, who are excluded by the discriminatory provisions of the Indian Act. That's one of the reasons we chose to be involved in this process.

    Secondly, within that same consultation process and within all the processes we participated in over the last two and a half years, we did what we call technical work within the process. We went beyond whatever consultation process the minister had put in place.

    While we were out in the field, we also chose to consult our people about the future, what they saw as possible future happenings, future change to the Indian Act, because it's quite evident to everybody, I believe, that this old, colonial piece of legislation is far outdated and is inappropriate to serve the needs of the aboriginal people it is supposed to serve.

    So that's what we've been doing within the same process. We have consulted. Our people have fully determined that there must be a total overhaul of this existing Indian Act. We feel it must be replaced somewhere along the way by a more appropriate aboriginal or first peoples act that would be more reflective of the reality we live in this century. We're still living under the Indian Act. We're still living back 135 years ago when probably, to somebody, it made sense, but it certainly doesn't make sense today, Mr. Chairman.

    I am an old hand and I've been around for one heck of a long time, probably longer than anyone who is in this room here. I well remember my days as a young kid on the reserve. After we left the reserve in 1943, I well remember also everything that kept going on within the reserve, the controls of the band agent and the Indian Affairs agents, and so on and so forth. It is not so long ago that Indian people were somewhat liberated from this type of control. But there is still a lot of control out there. This control, somewhere along the way, has to come back to descendants of the aboriginal people and to first nations people.

    However, I must say that we're somewhat leery about the entire process. We realize that in this form of consultation, this time around, Minister Nault did create somewhat of an opening that has never been there in the past where there was an opportunity given to grassroots people to speak for themselves. Somewhere along the line the process was quite heavily boycotted, and it still is, by first nations. That's their choice and that's their prerogative. However, be that as it may, whether it was first nations leadership or grassroots first people who decided, the fact is that the whole process was boycotted anyway. But, like I say, that's their prerogative.

    The reason we're leery is, like I say, I well remember the past and I well remember a similar committee that we participated in back in 1985. Back then it had to do with Bill C-31. I fully realize that regardless of what aboriginal people spoke for or against in Bill C-31, the end result was simply that the government went ahead and did what it had intended to in the first place. That process was, I feel, totally upside down, totally biased.

    Everywhere we go within our province, any aboriginal people we speak to are still caught up in the mess created by Bill C-31, by the half-hearted attempt to change things. Bill C-31 was just put in place for Canada to look better on the international scene. It didn't really resolve much for aboriginal people.

    We've seen the Twinn case. We've seen the Corbiere case. What personally I've seen the most as an off-reserve aboriginal leader is that Bill C-31 resulted--back in 1985, even before it came into effect--in an immediate loss of benefit to status Indians living off reserve. The first thing that was cut off from status Indians living off reserve was housing; a housing program that was available to status Indians living off reserve was abolished on March 31, 1985. Why? Because the government was afraid of too high a demand on the program because aboriginal women and their first-generation children would be taking back status. I don't think that's a proper way for a government to act towards people. It has a fiduciary obligation to these people. They shouldn't base that obligation on residency on a small piece of land. It should be based on the fact that they are aboriginal in the first place.

»  (1705)  

    We have also seen for status Indians living off reserve...and I hope status Indians forgive me for speaking about this, but I'm concerned, and the people I represent are concerned, and people have come to us who are concerned. We have also seen over the years a reduction in uninsured health benefits. We have seen a reduction for off-reserve status Indians in housing, in education. We have seen an inequitable treatment of status Indians living off reserve as concerns HRDC programs. Why should they have to come to an organization like the Native Alliance of Quebec, which has very little funding, which does not go to Indian Affairs for funding? Why should these people have to come to us for services?

    I fully believe that the Department of Indian Affairs is not taking responsibility towards off-reserve aboriginal status people, let alone Métis non-status.

    What we are hoping for is that at least this time around this legislation will not have that type of effect, and hopefully the consultation that did take place, whether for or against, will be taken into account, if in fact there is new legislation. Who knows what is going to happen over the next couple of years?

    I hope this does not result in further loss of benefits for off-reserve status Indians, because if we are in a position at the NAQ to help them on a very small scale presently, any further cuts in programs and services will leave them in a more deplorable situation than they are in now.

    With this said, Mr. Chairman, hopefully government will stop and reflect and will take away this prerequisite that for Indian people to be eligible for programs and services they must reside on a very limited piece of land somewhere in the province of Quebec. These reserves were not set up by Indian people. They were set up by the federal government, the provincial government, and the church for convenience purposes. They were not determined by the Indian people; they were determined by government for convenience. And hopefully somewhere along the line the power of decisions, the power of controlling their own lives and of determining their own nation's citizenship will go back to aboriginal people.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

»  (1710)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

[Translation]

    Mr. Brazeau, will you make a presentation?

    Mr. Patrick Brazeau (Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, Native Alliance of Quebec): No.

    The Chair: So we're going to go on to the question period. The first round is seven minutes long.

    I should note that, when I say seven minutes, that means the time allotted for the question and the answer. So, if politicians go on too long...

    Grand Chief Fernand Chalifoux: We tell them to stop?

    The Chair: Yes, otherwise the victims are the guests.

    Mr. Loubier.

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

    Welcome, Grand Chief Chalifoux, Mr. Brazeau.

    Grand Chief Chalifoux, I have a question to ask you. You say you were excluded from the consultation process, but that you nevertheless decided to take part in it. You also say you were disappointed by what happened at the time of the attempt concerning Bill C-31 and by the losses incurred by members of the Aboriginal nations. In your view, with Bill C-7, the federal government is doing what it wants, despite the protests.

    Do you think the federal government is in good faith? You clearly are, since you take part in the consultations, often opposing other organizations representing Aboriginal people. You do it, knowing perfectly well that the federal government is in bad faith. Can you explain to me, if you will, why you persist?

    Here's my second question. Grand Chief Chalifoux, the amendments you're proposing to Bill C-7 are currently being dismissed out of hand by the federal government. Are you going to maintain the same position, which is at the very least in favour of the government approach, or do you intend to change your mind?

»  (1715)  

    Grand Chief Fernand Chalifoux: I'm going to answer you in French; that's not a problem for me.

    Mr. Yvan Loubier: Very well.

    Grand Chief Fernand Chalifoux: First, we were mainly excluded from the first part of the basic process, despite the fact that we had committed to what was called a partnership. However, we realized that the partnership was one way. That's why, for the second phase, we chose to return the favour and partially exclude our Quebec region partners. We only offered them the opportunity to attend our assembly and to address all the leaders and some of the members of our organization. For the remainder of the consultation, we conducted it without the Department of Indian Affairs present.

    We are asked whether, despite all the disillusions of the past, we still believe in the government's good faith and intention to change things. To summarize, let's say that we are a people that, to a certain degree, has always assumed that others were in good faith, even though we have very often been disappointed.

    Should the proposed amendments be dismissed outright, we'll do what we've done for many years: we'll come back at the charge and continue fighting. We've always been here, and, although I mentioned earlier that I was getting old, I can assure you there are a lot of young people behind me. A living example of what I'm saying is right here beside me.

    So it's not because we're denied things that we'll set aside our priorities and abandon the fight. In my opinion, we're just starting to realize the extent of the consequences of this perpetuation of the exclusion generated by Bill C-31. Among the young people or young children who were around in 1985, many are married and have started their own families. That doesn't reduce the number of non-status Indians in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada; that increases it.

    Mr. Yvan Loubier: Thank you. In fact, Grand Chief, your French is excellent. You should use it.

    Grand Chief Fernand Chalifoux: I was raised in three languages.

    Mr. Yvan Loubier: Is that so? What was the third?

    Grand Chief Fernand Chalifoux: Algonquin. Unfortunately, I've hardly used it at all since I was a child. I've forgotten a lot about how to speak it, but I understand it quite well.

    Mr. Yvan Loubier: Thank you.

    The Chair: We mentioned 1943. That's the year you were born on the reserve?

    Grand Chief Fernand Chalifoux: I wish that were true, Mr. Chairman, but I was born six years earlier.

    The Chair: I see.

    Grand Chief Fernand Chalifoux: Because I was born in 1943, I'm one year older than you.

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Martin, we have seven minutes.

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

    I'm interested in the consultation process that took place here. First of all, you do have some statistics in the brief you submitted for the record of the results of the consultation. I'm interested, first of all, in what was the total number of people you managed to reach or bring together.

    Grand Chief Fernand Chalifoux: In the second phase of the consultation we reached 1,000 people--roughly 950 to 1,000 or over.

    Mr. Pat Martin: Really? That's impressive. Those are greater numbers than we've heard in most parts of the country. I think you actually did better in reaching your people than any other organization we've spoken to.

    In the results, did you limit your questions to strictly the three points the federal government wanted you to address? Elections, accountability, and government powers I think would be the three categories they wanted addressed. Or did you ask questions about the larger picture of forging a new relationship between the federal government and first nations?

»  (1720)  

    Grand Chief Fernand Chalifoux: What we did was this. We spent two hours on the issues, as put forward by the proposed legislation, and then once this subject was exhausted, we went ahead with an extra two hours of discussion with people. That's where the larger picture came out, and the Indian Act. It was a free-flowing discussion.

    By the way, I will be leaving a copy of the compilation of this consultation with the chair when I leave.

    The translation of this report will be available in about three weeks, and it will be distributed to members of the committee.

    The Chair: If you table it with the clerk, we will have it translated before then because--

    Grand Chief Fernand Chalifoux: It is being translated by your secretariat, by the way.

    The Chair: It should be done within three weeks as we're--

    Grand Chief Fernand Chalifoux: But we can't afford it.

    The Chair: I understand.

    Mr. Pat Martin: The reason I rephrased the issue of the consultations is many people feel it's not really consultation to ask somebody's opinion of a pre-prepared package. In other words, no matter what your people said at these hearings, it wouldn't have had any impact on what resulted in the bill.

    Consultation implies some give and take. In other words, the question should have been, “What would you like to see in a bill to amend the Indian Act?”, not “Here's what we intend to do. What do you think of it?”

    Would you agree that you didn't have any input into the content of Bill C-7?

    Grand Chief Fernand Chalifoux: When the bill came out we were disturbed that there was not enough consideration of our input in the first rounds of consultations. We felt that a lot of the stuff that had come out of these first rounds of consultations was not even taken into consideration.

    We also felt that the reason for this was that a lot of the stuff that came out of the Quebec consultation in the first round was not reported on through proper channels. We did, from our organization, just a partial reporting because we were not...that's why we broke up the partnership with the person who was in charge of recordings. The secretary of minute-keeping would not transmit to us the proper documentation, the accounting of these meetings.

    Our reporting was done to CAP from notes taken by our own people at these meetings. That's why we broke up the partnership this year. Even though we didn't have the proper funding to do it, we decided to do our own consultation to the exclusion of the INAC region.

    As you say, we consulted a lot of people. As we were not hampered by anybody setting the rules for us or setting the agenda for us, we were able to put extra efforts into the process.

    Mr. Pat Martin: Interesting. Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Ms. Karetak-Lindell.

    Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Thank you very much for your brief. I'm trying to read as much of it as I can.

    Some other witnesses talked about off-reserve benefits. We weren't able to get a very clear idea of exactly what they were looking for as far as benefits were concerned, but you have been able to help us with that.

    Perhaps you can clarify a little more about Bill C-31.

    When you said women chose to stay as members of NAQ instead of going back to their reserves, were they able to regain their benefits as NAQ members, or did they foreclose taking the benefits that they would have been entitled to if they had moved back to their reserve?

»  (1725)  

    Grand Chief Fernand Chalifoux: Well, these people who remained as members of NAQ required us in 1985, at our AGA, to make major changes to our constitution bylaws because the initial constitution bylaws and the membership bylaws of the NAQ were specific to Métis non-status Indians. However, at our AGA in 1985, a lot of native women and a lot of non-status members of the NAQ prior to 1985 were regaining status through Bill C-31. They also realized quite quickly that they sometimes were alone in regaining status because they were already at the second generation. In other cases, their grandchildren would be excluded.

    That doesn't mean they didn't take their status back. They did take their status back, but they also had quite a debate--it lasted some 14 hours--on the possibility of changing the membership bylaws of the Native Alliance of Quebec to allow them to continue participating in the Native Alliance of Quebec and to continue building the organization so that their children or grandchildren would have a place to go and identify themselves as aboriginal people.

    The problem is not with the form of membership people have. The problem is with the prerequisite, the requirements, the regulations that are tied to the Indian Act. The problem lies in the fact that most programs and services to status Indians do not transcend reserve boundaries. I don't count how many off-reserve status Indians there are in Canada, but in Quebec there are in excess of 18,500 status Indians who live all over the province and who do not live on reserve. And they have a lot of difficulty accessing services, if there are any.

    For example, in housing there is absolutely no program for aboriginal people in Quebec, for status Indians in Quebec, outside the programs we opened up to status Indians. We do have programs that we build up in Quebec for the Métis non-status Indians, but we have opened them up to status Indians living off reserve. As a matter of fact, 39% of our tenants in Quebec living in our 2,200 housing units are status Indians. We even house Inuits. They need it in Quebec City, Montreal, and elsewhere. We're inclusive, not exclusive.

    Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: Somewhere in your presentation you talked a little about the relationship between your organization and the bands that are part of your membership. You provide services for them. I guess you don't get any money from the bands that are receiving funds for those people who are on their band list but living off reserve. I'm trying to understand exactly what the relationship is--perhaps it's financial--between a band that has someone on their band list and is possibly receiving funds for it...but they are members of your organization. How do you work with the bands?

    Grand Chief Fernand Chalifoux: There is no real interrelation, political or financial. Where no program exists, for example, in housing, we do open our services to status Indians living off reserve. Where specific programs for status Indians do exist from their band or from the band-controlled or band-directed organization, then we refer them to these services, but we do not get any financial assistance, and as a matter of fact we don't get any political support for what we are doing.

»  (1730)  

    Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: Thank you.

[Translation]

    The Chair: Mr. Loubier, five minutes.

    Mr. Yvan Loubier: That's fine, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Martin is next for five minutes.

    Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you.

    Virtually no one across the country, on reserve or off reserve, supports this bill. The overwhelming number of presentations have been vehemently opposed, angrily opposed, to the point where, as you know, we had massive protests in Toronto, Winnipeg, Thunder Bay, Sudbury, and many places across the country. They simply don't want it because it doesn't speak to the issues they want addressed in the relationship between the federal government and first nations.

    We heard from the Atlantic Canada organization, the CAP affiliate in the Maritimes that represents P.E.I., Nova Scotia, New Brunswick--the Maritime Aboriginal Peoples Council. Even though they accepted money to run the consultations, and we were ostensibly led to believe they were the very people who would support this bill, they want us to recommend that the bill be withdrawn, that we take one step back and start over again with a more comprehensive study and changes to the Indian Act.

    Would you support that position?

    Grand Chief Fernand Chalifoux: The issue is that three points raised within the legislation are issues; however, we feel the process is flawed. It is piecemeal and not the appropriate mechanism required to resolve the issues that are out there. There has to be a broader approach to it. You cannot deal with the problems in a piecemeal way.

    Mr. Pat Martin: What would you direct us to do then, Mr. Chalifoux? Would you say scrap Bill C-7, as many of your colleagues have?

    Grand Chief Fernand Chalifoux: Don't just scrap Bill C-7 and forget it because some of the concerns raised in it are, as I said, piecemeal. I would recommend that you scrap Bill C-7 as it is, go for a broader approach, and take an overall look at the situation and this dinosaur legislation that's out there. It should have died with the dinosaurs. It should never have been in place in the first place, but it is.

    Aboriginal people have been living under this colonial legislation for 135 years. It has divided our people. It has determined first nations citizenship for first nations people. How the hell can a government seriously say it wants to deal with first nations on a nation-to-nation basis when first nations, first peoples, are not even in a position or allowed to determine their own citizenship? That's one of the major problems with the Indian Act.

    Mr. Pat Martin: There has been a point made that it undermines the very idea of self-governance to impose codes of governance on a people when surely one of the aspects of self-governance is the right to design institutions of governance yourselves that suit customary traditions, etc.

    One of the most offensive aspects of this bill is that if you don't implement the codes as per their ruling within two years, the default kicks in and the codes will be imposed on 633 first nations across the country.

    Do you find that aspect of the bill offensive?

    Grand Chief Fernand Chalifoux: It is, because should first nations become truly first nations, where they can determine their own citizenship and they get to a point where they're inclusive of their people, rather than exclusive, as per Indian Act regulations, it stands to reason once we get to that point that first nations people will have to develop their own codes according to their own rules.

    In the present form, to say we'll just look at two or three problems and try...not really to resolve them but say that such and such rule a has to be put in place to respect Corbiere and whatnot, and if these are not respected we'll put everybody in default, that's just mulling around with the same old law that doesn't fit. It shouldn't be there in the 21st century.

»  (1735)  

    Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you.

    The Chair: Mr. Bagnall, for five minutes.

    Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): Thank you.

    And thank you, Mr. Brazeau for coming today. Thank you both.

    I have a pet area of the bill--redress--that I'm quite interested in, primarily because of the phone calls I get. I'm interested in your section on that, on page 4, where you talk about human rights.

    I understand your point that the government should be required to be responsible for human rights. Now, you realize that Bill C-7 proposes to eliminate the exemption so the Canadian Human Rights Act would apply to first nations--that's in either clause 41 or 42--and that with certain conditions.... I assume you're in favour of that.

    Grand Chief Fernand Chalifoux: Yes, as long as it's very clear. But if I simply say I agree with that, it means I agree with the bill, which I really don't. One thing I do agree with is that whether you're Indian, Inuit, white, German, Chinese, or whatever, you should not be exempt from the most fundamental principle of human rights.

    Mr. Larry Bagnell: So then you're also asking that each band develop human rights codes that are generally parallel to the Canadian one?

    I'm just trying to make clear what you're saying, that's all.

    Grand Chief Fernand Chalifoux: Definitely. That's exactly what we mean.

    Mr. Larry Bagnell: Okay.

    Under clause 11, which is the regular redress, you're saying no other government leaves this to its executive as a matter of discretion and that the membership on and off reserve must be empowered to control how redress is provided.

    That's basically what clause 11 does, so are you saying you're in support of that concept?

    Grand Chief Fernand Chalifoux: We support the principle.

    Mr. Larry Bagnell: Okay.

    I like this idea you suggested that it could be structured at a regional level. We had that suggestion this morning.

    First of all, in the Maritimes, we had a suggestion that it just be a national body, but I was saying that then you're just governed from Ottawa again. But the person then said, well, it could be regional, to get it closer to the local area.

    I assume you agree with that concept, because if there were just one body far away, you'd be defeating self-government in a way.

    Grand Chief Fernand Chalifoux: When we say regional, we're talking about all aboriginal people in one given area. We're talking about people. A lot of our approach is not based on restrictions or regulations; it's based on people. It has to be people involved, people who decide something and structure it.

    Maybe one of the ways of eventually achieving that is when we get to a point where aboriginal people as a whole talk to each other a bit more and not talk through government departments or agencies.

»  (1740)  

    Mr. Larry Bagnell: Is that my time?

    The Chair: You have one minute left.

    Mr. Larry Bagnell: I agree with you. I think the trade-off is you want to preserve the sovereignty of the government, but you want the lowest person on the scale--the most helpless person--to at least have the ability to defend themselves, to have a way of making their point. And as you say, it should be designed by the people. So you protect both of those things--someone gets a chance to make a point, but the governing is still done within the nation itself.

    Grand Chief Fernand Chalifoux: As we say in our brief, not exchanging one keeper or one warden for another. That's what we're opposed to.

    Unfortunately, that's the situation we're in now. We're still wards somewhere, and somebody is just guarding us until somebody decides what the heck they want to do with us.

[Translation]

    The Chair: Mr. Loubier.

    Mr. Yvan Loubier: That's all right.

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Martin, for five minutes.

    Mr. Pat Martin: Well, never one to miss an opportunity, I'll go one more round.

    There has been a lot of apprehension expressed about what really lies behind the philosophy of this bill. It's been featured by the minister and by the government to be about transparency and accountability. In fact, it was prefaced by a whole misinformation campaign, if you will, about the terrible state of finance, the financial mess, that exists in most first nations communities. That was the allegation made.

    We've learned in our studies that's not true. Of all first nations communities, 96% file their audits on time and without incident. For the remaining 4%, the financial stress is often due to inadequate funding and trying to meet the needs of the community with inadequate resources. So they're getting public support with this message that this is really about accountability.

    But there's a fear, a justifiable concern, that there's a secondary objective here, which is to derogate from, diminish, or at least infringe upon traditional or inherent aboriginal and treaty rights and off-load the fiduciary responsibility from the Crown to bands and councils by changing their legal status.

    One of the biggest reasons for this fear is the absence of a non-derogation clause. There's nothing in the bill that specifically says that's not what they're trying to do, so in the absence of that language, there's reason to believe that is exactly what they're trying to do.

    You don't call for a non-derogation clause in your brief. Is this something that was raised at your...?

    Grand Chief Fernand Chalifoux: It was raised through our participation in the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, and the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples raised it at the advisory committee level.

    Mr. Pat Martin: The JMAC?

    Grand Chief Fernand Chalifoux: Yes. But on the problem we have with how things are being done, our people who are off reserve tell us there is a need for more accountability, as far as they're concerned. Because they live off reserve they're away from the process that takes place on reserve.

    There is a need for them to be better informed. There is a need for them to be better included. Their problem with the process is the mechanism used. A lot of our people fear that if it's done under the proposed process, under the proposed mechanism, we'll only end up reinforcing the old Indian Act that most of us are totally opposed to. That's where we have a problem.

    Of course, this legislation could come about regardless of what we feel about it. Over the years--no reflection on a Liberal, Conservative, NDP, or whatever government--it's been a policy of governments to just go ahead and do what they want. Aboriginal people are leery of any kind of process that could lead to the same kind of situation again. A piece of government legislation has controlled our lives for generations upon generations in a totally inadequate fashion.

    You mentioned a while ago that the Indian Act was somewhat related to aboriginal and treaty rights. I beg you, sir, to name me one area where the Indian Act protects our aboriginal and treaty rights. It does not. It's a law that's there to control aboriginal people.

    Now, even though we might agree there is a need tighten it up in certain areas, we're in a process of just reinforcing that legislation without going back to the most fundamental principle of our aboriginal and treaty rights--our right to be self-governing as a people.

»  (1745)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Mr. Bagnell is next for five minutes.

    Mr. Larry Bagnell: Thank you.

    In your brief you said you didn't have much of a problem with the approval of the band leadership and government rules. But one of the points that's been brought up several times is the 25% lower level we'd need to approve that.

    In your discussions, did you talk about that being higher? Most of the people suggested it might be a higher limit. They were a bit worried about that.

    Grand Chief Fernand Chalifoux: There was no major concern around that area. Our people did not get into it much, even though it was up to them to decide how they wanted to go about it.

    When this process was going on within our communities or different areas of the province, it was not an NAQ political process. It was a totally independent process. It was done by an independent group owned by an aboriginal woman who had regained status through Bill C-31. She is not a member of NAQ, and her husband is a Métis.

    Mr. Larry Bagnell: Excellent. You have some very interesting things here on the governance. There are very important points that will be good for us to look at--very positive.

    There's the point about the majority having to be elected on a council, and you talked about the broader council where they might want to appoint people. This morning, someone in the Maritimes was worried about this section because they thought that non-band members or non-first nations people could actually end up controlling councils and things.

    When you talk about a broader governing organization where the councils, or whoever, appoint people to it, would all those people have to be band members or status Indians, on or off reserve? Would there be no controls on who the broader council members were?

    Grand Chief Fernand Chalifoux: You bring in two different areas that we address in that document.

    One of the areas we addressed where concerns were raised by our people was the issue of representation within the existing structure of status. That is to say, status Indians living off reserve right now cannot, according to the Indian Act rules, have a seat on the band council. The chief might be Chinese, if the people so wish, but the band council must be status Indians who are resident on the reserve. That's one issue.

    When we talk about the larger issue of mixed representation status, non-status Métis and whatnot, we are talking about a forum or a direction group that could be formed among different aboriginal groups within a given area. We could have a form of council where we deal with common issues that concern all aboriginal people.

    So, no, in that particular case you would not have a prerequisite that it be only status Indians or only band residents. It's two issues.

»  (1750)  

    Mr. Larry Bagnell: Lastly, I was a little perturbed right at the beginning where you talked about the fact that you were not well received by the departmental regional officials, considering you had such good ideas.

    I was curious about what the problem was in their listening to them.

    Grand Chief Fernand Chalifoux: Well, sometimes it's a question of mentality.

    Unfortunately, at the Corbiere phase and at phase one, the mentality of a regional director was simply that we had no damned business being there. It was simply that. As a matter of fact, we never were paid for the work we did on Corbiere, even though it was approved by the minister's office. The region boycotted the payment.

    We did it anyway. But it simply boils down to that issue of mentality and that narrow-minded perception of who is aboriginal. Unfortunately, some people feel that to be an aboriginal person you have to be recognized by a non-native law and you have to have a card issued to you by a non-aboriginal person.

    The Chair: Thank you very much. This completes the question part of it, and now we invite you to make closing remarks. And we have a fair amount of time.

    Grand Chief Fernand Chalifoux: I believe, Mr. Chairman, that throughout most of my comments in responding to questions from the various participants, I also made most of my closing remarks. In particular, I stated that I hope that this consultation process that is going on will not be a one-way street, where we give best efforts, but on the other side we are not given the best attention. So whatever happens through this process, and hopefully it will be something better than what's being offered now, in the end run it will not have any negative effects on aboriginal people.

    Thank you, sir.

    The Chair: We thank you very much for your contribution, which will be very helpful. Without having to talk about age, experience you can't buy. So you know what you are talking about. And if you have convinced us of one thing, it's about your sincerity.

    We appreciate your presentation very much, Mr. Chalifoux.

    And thank you, Monsieur Brazeau.

    Grand Chief Fernand Chalifoux: Mr. Chairman, I will leave with you these three documents. One is our report to the AGA last year, and this is our final report this year from the work that was done by the Ajawajiwesi consulting company.

    The Chair: We thank you very much for that.

    Grand Chief Fernand Chalifoux: I won't leave you a copy of the bill. I think you have one.

»  (1755)  

[Translation]

    The Chair: It's my pleasure to invite Quebec Native Women Inc., represented by its president, Michèle Audette. She will be accompanied by Merilda St-Onge, Ellen Gabriel and Monique Larivière. We're going to spend an hour together. We invite you to make your presentations. Then, time permitting, there will be a question period.

    Welcome. You may begin when ready. Thank you.

    Ms. Michèle Audette (President, Quebec Native Women Inc.): Before starting, I would like to thank the people, men and women, here around the table for coming to listen to the voice of Quebec native women. However, I must admit that I expected a larger audience. I imagine I have the quality before me.

    The Chair: I'm going to give you a brief explanation. Some committee members were recalled to Ottawa for a vote; I hope they'll return this evening. These are members on both sides.

    Ms. Michèle Audette: Perfect. We'll see whether our recommendations are accepted.

    I'd also like to tell you that we have in the room men and women who are dressed in white as a sign of solidarity with our position, which you're going to hear today. Thank you.

    I'm here this evening to talk about governance and what this term means to the women and children of First Nations.

    Bill C-7 addresses issues of administration and financial management, which indeed fall under the category of governance. As we have always said, the Quebec Native Women's Association will support all initiatives leading to self-government for our nations, but, as you already know, governance involves much more than pushing paper.

    Good governance must also address fundamentally human needs such as food, shelter, preservation of the family, membership in a community and freedom from discrimination.

    Bill C-7 does not meet fundamentally human needs. Any system of governance is bound to fail its citizens. What use is there in having a smoothly operating administration and balanced books to someone who has no place to live? To a woman who loses her home and property after a divorce? To children forced to live apart from their family and loved ones? To someone cut off from her culture and deprived of her identity?

    In its present form, the archaic Indian Act system leaves some of the most vulnerable people in society, women and their children, open to harm and discrimination. As a governing mechanism, it needs major changes in order to ensure that all members of First Nations communities are treated both fairly and equitably regardless of their gender or status.

    If these most fundamental human rights are not being met by a system of governance, then it will fail. It's as simple as that.

    Those needs should be the priority of good governance, but, instead, they are unfortunately being completely disregarded. What does this lack of concern say about Canada's attitude toward Aboriginal women and children? What could possibly be more important than basic human rights and freedom from discrimination?

    Quebec Native women would therefore like to draw your attention to six points, six aspects of this bill.

    The first is that Band councils choose to defy the 1985 amendments to the Indian Act by refusing to allow reinstated women and their children to return to their communities and by refusing those who have returned access to housing, programs and services.

    The second point is that section 5 of the First Nations Governance Act may subject First Nations people to even greater inequality, as it allows for discrimination in the right to participate in the selection of council.

    Third, there is continuing discrimination in the Indian Act. The Government of Canada has been aware of this residual discrimination for over 15 years but has failed to act on it.

    Fourth, Canada is in breach of both its domestic and international obligations. Discrimination against the children and the grandchildren of women who regained their status under section 6(2) of the Indian Act, the assumption that the father of a child is not Indian if the mother does not reveal his identity, the unequal patrimonial rights of spouses in a divorce and the lack of guarantee of residence within the community for non-Aboriginal husbands are all situations that are incompatible with Canada's international obligations.

    The fifth point is that women who have been reinstated face many problems when they try to return to their communities. There is a lack of support for the additional housing cost and adequate land base. Furthermore, the children of these women may be forced to leave their communities at the age of 18. Neither the non-Native spouse of a woman nor her children are guaranteed a right of residency - a policy that undermines the stability of the family and all concepts of human decency. The family should be protected by the State and not divided by it!

    Lastly, the Indian Act is silent on the division of property upon divorce. Historically, lands and houses were registered by Indian and Northern Affairs Canada in the male spouses' name, leading to economic vulnerability and homelessness of women and children. Once again, this kind of discrimination against women is contrary to international law.

    In conclusion, I say from the bottom of my heart that Canada can no longer remain silent on these issues and has a duty not to turn the other way. Non-action is unforgivable at this point considering how many years the Canadian government has had to resolve these problems. Canada must live up to its constitutional obligations and ensure that Band councils operate in a manner compatible with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Not to do so would amount to further discrimination on the part of the Government. Good governance addresses the needs and wants of the people it affects, and our recommendations reflect the real and urgent needs of the members of our communities.

    For this process to be truly democratic these concerns need to be addressed and not shelved and forgotten for another fifteen years. We can no longer accept these things. Thank you.

¼  (1800)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much for your excellent presentation. Ms. Audette, would your colleagues like to add anything to your presentation, or do you prefer that we move on immediately to the question period?

    Ms. St-Onge.

    Ms. Merilda St-Onge (Quebec Native Women Inc.): I would just like to come back to the question of the classes under subsections 6(1) and (2) of the Indian Act. When a single mother has a child whose father does not acknowledge paternity, the child is considered a non-Aboriginal, as a result of which the women who are classed under subsection 6(2) cannot obtain housing in the communities because they have children who cannot inherit. So this is ongoing discrimination that is applied in our communities.

    I just wanted to make you aware of that.

¼  (1805)  

    The Chair: That's very helpful. Thank you.

    Would you like to add something, Ms. Gabriel?

[English]

    Ms. Ellen Gabriel (As Individual): One of the things I'd like to add is that this could possibly be a chance for the Government of Canada to reverse its discrimination against women dating from the inception of the Indian Act.

    There are many reasons why I, as a person, would reject the First Nations Governance Act. Speaking as a traditional woman and as part of the Iroquois Confederacy, many things within the Indian Act have undermined the assertion of sovereignty by the Iroquois Confederacy. Our membership is nothing like what the Indian Act band councils and their membership have enforced, which have caused divisions among our people. I think the Government of Canada is well aware of the international statements made against the Indian Act and what it has done to our communities in enforcing and perpetuating the colonialistic attitudes against indigenous people in Canada. If this law goes through, it is just going to be another example of this. It will not satisfy the indigenous people and it will not satisfy our equality among each other.

    While there are some things I agree with, I still think you are missing the whole point of what human rights are. So pushing forth this legislation will further deny the human rights of indigenous people and their children.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

[Translation]

    Mr. Loubier, seven minutes.

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

    Ms. Audette, Ms. Gabriel, Ms. Larivière and Ms. St-Onge, thank you for your excellent presentation and also for the excellent brief you have submitted to us.

    Since the start of this tour, and even in Ottawa, we have witnessed the dissatisfaction of Aboriginal women, and, everywhere in Canada, from east to west, we have found the same types of discrimination problems.

    In reading your brief, I realized that this has lasted for years and years. Things are clear since, from reading your brief, even someone who knows very little of this field will be outraged at what he reads.

    So how to explain why, despite the many reports and many years of analyses and studies, the federal government is introducing a bill, C-7, which is utterly insignificant with regard to the actual problems experienced by Aboriginal women and by Aboriginals in general, rather than taking up its responsibilities? How can we explain why so much discrimination, so many situations of injustice such as this, are maintained without reacting, whereas Canada presents itself in the world as a champion of rights, freedoms and justice?

    Ms. Michèle Audette: If I can take the liberty of answering that, that's obviously a question to which there are as many answers as there are women here at the table. But what I've noticed, after four years of commitment within Quebec Native Women, is that the federal government has trouble pushing these things along because they aren't, first of all, priorities in our communities. When I say our communities, I mean our Aboriginal leaders.

    The issues in our communities are important in my view and in that of Quebec Native Women as well. We're talking about land claims, self-government, financial compensation and so on, and that's important for us, but we forget the fundamental basis, which is the individual, the individual's citizenship, law and responsibilities.

    We note here--I've noticed this with Quebec Native Women--that the government closes its eyes. The federal government closes its eyes to its international responsibilities, treaties, conventions and so on, but, at the same time, I believe it is sticking to the agenda it set a long time ago with the White Paper, which consists in taking steps, as I say, for us to become proper citizens, proper Canadians. The research conducted by the Department of Indian Affairs and the Assembly of First Nations, among others, shows that, within 40 years, there will be no more Indians under the Indian Act. That implies that the Department of Indian Affairs will have no more fiduciary or legal responsibilities toward the First Nations. So I figure that ensuring that we're no longer here is an old emancipation strategy.

    However, I feel the danger is that women and children will pay the cost, and there are also boys among those children. What troubles me is that native women are seen as a gang of feminists, troublemakers, but what I'm saying isn't like that. It's a question of society, and that affects our peoples, men and women, the young and the less young.

    I can't believe--you mentioned it, Mr. Loubier--that Canada has been recognized by the international community as the best country in the world, but it's ranked sixty-third with regard to the native question. And with respect to human rights, why is it women who have to pay? Why?

    I figure the Canadian government has a golden opportunity here to make up for things, things that the UN Human Rights Committee has often pointed out. The international community and other internal committees here in Canada have also pointed a finger at Canada over the situation of native women. How is it that this is still going on? In my opinion, you have a golden opportunity here to ensure that the situation of women changes and that we can talk about true governance, not a matter of pushing paper, as I said in my speech.

¼  (1810)  

    Mr. Yvan Loubier: Ms. Audette, I would like you to help us because I've been responsible for this issue for barely a few months. I was previously responsible for finance, agriculture and unions as well. I saw Ms. Parent earlier. We got in some good shots together in the free trade debate.

    How do you think we can stop the Ottawa steamroller? I call it that because, from reading after reading, I realize that, regardless of the injustices we can throw in their face, regardless of the explanations, even explaining to the utmost your situation and that of Aboriginal nations generally, the federal government seems to have decided to take this path and even to go against the UN resolutions.

    I read the other day about the case of the Lubicon First Nation in Alberta. What has been done to them in the past 50 years is incredible.

    Give us the ways and means to convince the federal government because, to date, I've been disconcerted by the incredibly closed attitude, particularly of the Minister of Indian Affairs. I simply can't believe it.

    Ms. Michèle Audette: I won't have to remake history and reinvent the wheel. We have been writing briefs and taking positions for 30 years now, or approximately 20 years for our association. Our solutions are in there; they're there in black and white and have not changed, unfortunately, because the federal government's attitude has not changed.

    As for the First Nations as a whole, I believe it's important to adhere to the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. That was costly for some Canadians, and it was a ray of hope for us. It's been put on the shelf, whereas it should be implemented, put into action. I believe it contains a lot of answers that the government could use in working with the First Nations, rather than imposing things on the First Nations. What is important is to work on a basis of equality, which I unfortunately don't often see.

    Mr. Yvan Loubier: Thank you.

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Martin, for seven minutes.

    Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you very much for your excellent presentation and the excellent points you raised. I'm very happy to hear you make the point that this is more than anything a lost opportunity, because it's only once in a generation that the federal government seems to have the political will or courage to open up the Indian Act. This might be the only chance in our lifetimes that we are going to see the act opened up, yet you are telling me that the issues they chose to deal with are not the issues you would have prioritized if you were consulted.

    So I want to start with the consultation process. The Minister of Indian Affairs was the first witness to this committee. In his opening remarks, he said the bill had been drafted by 10,000 first nations people, who he had consulted with and who had told him what they had wanted. Everybody we have heard right across the country has said this is an absolute crock.

    Do you feel you were adequately consulted, and if you were consulted, would these be the issues that you would choose to deal with in Bill C-7?

[Translation]

    Ms. Michèle Audette: I'm pleased with your question, Mr. Martin, and I'm going to be frank.

[English]

I'll be frank.

[Translation]

    When we met the Minister of Indian Affairs, it was because we had exercised a lot of pressure. We saw the communications at the national level between the Assembly of First Nations and his department in order to amend the Act. Just seeing that, Quebec women were pleased: finally, we were going to amend the Indian Act. Yes, we have to get rid of it because it's an obsolete and archaic act, but we need to do so gradually.

    So we met the minister with a plan, a plan that QNW, Quebec Native Women, considered important, a plan for a human rights and social development secretariat that could have addressed these issues, and addressed the questions also mentioned in Bill C-7. The Minister simply told me in front of witnesses that, if I could prove to him that our organization was a good organization, as we were saying, that I could conduct the consultations on the governance bill with him and that we could then talk about money, a lot of money for our human rights and social development secretariat.

    I was surprised to see that reaction. So I told him that that was perfect, that we were going to examine the content of that consultation, its major principles, guidelines and so on. Once we had read and analyzed the document, we only addressed the question of transparency, accountability and so on, but it did not address the fundamental matters. Not only did it not address Quebec native women, but it didn't address citizenship, peoples, recognition either; it didn't address those things.

    So we met with the minister again to tell him that we couldn't do that consultation. We can't: the chiefs rejected it, the friendship centres rejected it. Quebec Native Women, for personal reasons as a group, will have to reject it because we don't want to put the question of women in there. The Indian Affairs representatives--this is written in black and white; we have the information on tape--told us that they couldn't talk about the issue of women, that it was too complex, that it would take too much time and that it would be too costly for them. I swear to you that's what they told us. It hurts to be told that by the Indian Affairs lawyers.

¼  (1815)  

[English]

    Mr. Pat Martin: Incredible.

[Translation]

    Ms. Michèle Audette: The women were here. They told them that they now had a golden opportunity to advance, evolve and change the things that are unacceptable in the area of human rights.

    So that was a little background as to how things have happened. Lastly, we completely rejected the consultation process because terms were already pre-established, already conceived, and we just looked like little puppets who were going to open the doors for the officials, the researchers and the leaders in the communities. I believe we are mature enough and expert enough to be able to conduct consultations. So we refused.

[English]

    Ms. Ellen Gabriel: There is a big misconception that band councils represent the majority of aboriginal people living in Canada. They represent a small minority within their community. Most people reject the band councils system.

    From what I understand, the consultation process is the following: “This is what we have drafted. I'm sitting here talking to you, so I am consulting you.” This is the consultation process the Department of Indian Affairs comes with.

    Mr. Pat Martin: Yes, that's their definition of consultation.

    Ms. Ellen Gabriel: That means they have consulted us. So when they say it is representative of all the indigenous people of Canada, they are essentially lying. They are trying to convince the people or the public that, yes, indigenous people have been consulted, when, no, this is a draft of their own doing.

    It's another example of legislation being passed without our input and consultation, and of treating us as wards of the state.

    Mr. Pat Martin: Well put. Thank you.

    I guess I'm disappointed, but not surprised, to hear the cynical way that a carrot or some monetary incentive was dangled in front of your nose to, “Come on board my initiative, and then we'll talk about your issues after the fact”.

    I'm especially shocked to hear that somehow the implementation of basic human rights is a cost factor, which we can't afford in the richest and most powerful civilization in the history of the world. Rights are a cost factor that will be put in as secondary, which we'll get around to when it's convenient.

    You raised the RCAP, or the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. We've heard many passionate presentations from around this country that say, “Withdraw Bill C-7 and take the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples off the shelf and open it to virtually any page, and start to implement the recommendations of the Royal Commission. It will be money better spent than on Bill C-7.”

    Let me just tell you about the budget. They plan on spending $110 million per year for five years to shove this bill down the throats of people who don't want it. We think that's lowballing it, as it could be $1 billion or more.

    Would you agree that it would be money better spent to back up, to do genuine consultation, and to make meaningful changes in the relationship between the federal government and first nations people, instead of tinkering with the imposition of colonialism, as the national chief puts it?

¼  (1820)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Ms. Karetak-Lindell.

    Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: Thank you very much for your presentation.

    I'm going to maybe ask you to clarify some of your recommendations, because over the weeks that we've been listening to different witnesses, we have spoken to and heard from people who have the same concerns you do. I believe your submission is the first one I've seen that really deals with a lot of the issues that people are skirting around but sometimes don't give us real information about.

    Your first and second points bother me greatly, that there are very little services available to women and children and that people are systematically going out of their way to make sure the services and benefits they're entitled to are not being passed on. At another hearing, I remember asking a group of women if there were a great number of people who would move back to their reserves if the benefits they were entitled to would be guaranteed to them. I also hear from some of the bands that they don't get enough funds to offer services to people already living on reserve.

    I'll ask you two questions then. Do you feel that a lot of women would move back to their reserve if they were guaranteed the benefits they were entitled to—which I feel were given to them under Bill C-31? And could you explain your first and second points a little more, that funding is systematically being withheld from the people?

    Ms. Michèle Audette: I would rather answer in French—not because I don't have respect, but because it's easier for me.

[Translation]

Thank you very much for your understanding.

    When Bill C-31 entered into effect in 1985, the communities across Canada received funds from the Department of Indian Affairs to reintegrate reinstated women. Research conducted outside Quebec and what we have been able to determine, with all the mobilization efforts we have made in Quebec, show that most of those women did not return to their community. The money was allocated for other purposes, for purposes--and you may find it odd that we're saying this--that we can understand because there is a lack of housing in the communities.

    The 200 families that were on a waiting list at the time--it may be even longer now--were thus prioritized with money from C-31. So most of the reinstated women were not prioritized.

    At the same time, the communities had been promised land so that they could build houses for those women, and the communities did not get the land. Most of the communities, the vast majority, if not all, did not receive the land the government had promised. So that's also an obstacle. So that's the first problem regarding the return of women.

    I believe you also had a question on point 2 of our presentation, if I understood correctly.

[English]

    Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: Could you give us a little more information on your first and second points?

[Translation]

    Ms. Michèle Audette: I remember that you also asked whether women would return. It should be said that we're now talking about nearly 18 years; we're talking about 1985. Those women have built families, either around the community or much farther away from the community. I don't know whether they want to return, but you have to think about those who do. They have the right, which was taken away from them. So solutions have to be found. The onus is on you, I believe, to bring pressure to bear for us so that those women are taken into consideration.

    As to point 2 of my presentation, clause 5 of the governance bill has a number of paragraphs, from 1 to 5, and we interpreted it as follows: this is the question of reinstated women, but women who have not necessarily had the chance to return to their communities. So we're saying that this is a provision that will disproportionately affect reinstated women and their children because, from the outset, they were forced to leave their reserves and are often unable to obtain housing in their community because they have also been victims of discrimination.

    Who will make sure that those women have had the right to vote or the right to speak? That's a major concern for Quebec Native Women.

    The Chair: I would like to clarify a point that might help. What Ms. Karetak-Lindell is referring to when she refers to article 2 or paragraph 2 is to your document that you presented earlier, which is different from your presentation today. I'm going to read what it says in English:

[English]

That program funding be withheld from First Nations who defy the Indian Act by discriminating against reinstated women and children in the provision of programs and services.

¼  (1825)  

[Translation]

    Ms. Michèle Audette: You're talking about point 2 of our brief?

[English]

    Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: I know what you read is very different from what we have received.

    Ms. Michèle Audette: Exactly.

    Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: I'm just looking at the recommendations you have.

    Ms. Michèle Audette: Oh, it's from the brief. Okay, good.

[Translation]

    The Chair: You may think so; you'll have the opportunity to make a few closing remarks later.

    Mr. Loubier, five minutes.

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

    Ms. Audette, you mentioned earlier that we must respect the wishes of women who have been excluded from reserves and respect their choice to return.

    Isn't there also another aspect of the question? There is prejudice against these women which must be rectified. When they were excluded, that was prejudicial to them for their future, for the future of their children, and so on. Shouldn't we also talk about prejudice that should be rectified, even for women who would not want to return to the reserves?

    Second, when we met the minister and his officials, as well as a number of persons who expressed their support for Bill C-7, they also raised the possibility that, by introducing more accountability on the reserves, by also having a greater degree of democracy--it seems the Aboriginal nations are lacking that, if we directly analyze what the minister told us--in ensuring as well that things are better managed--the Aboriginal nations apparently have trouble managing their finances, whereas, when you look at the facts, they have a better balance sheet than the federal government as regards per capita debt and so on--a large number of cases of discrimination toward women and children would be settled. What do you think of those statements?

    Ms. Michèle Audette: I'm going to be frank with you: Bill C-7 does nothing to resolve the discrimination and racism toward Native women and their children. Even the Auditor General put her finger on the real cause. Some communities manage well and others have trouble managing because they have to file too many reports with the four major federal organizations. In addition, as is the case in all societies, there are obviously people who are skimming off the top. But I can't verify that. I can't identify on the map of Quebec where things are being done that way.

    Obviously, women and men want to know where the money goes, like anyone else, but I believe the minister is hoodwinking Canadians if he's trying to make them believe that he's taking care of Indians in Canada. I'm sorry, but that's B.S.

    Some communities have good management. Other communities aren't required to be accountable to the members of their community, but do it in the form of reports. Quebec Native Women consulted 14 communities two years ago, and the leaders in the 14 communities held public assemblies. Every meeting was broadcast on the community radio station, and there were things on paper, but we obviously heard men and women complain about management. That's clear in my mind.

    If we want to talk about democracy in our communities and the minister says that democracy is lacking in our communities, then why didn't he propose amendments that would result in true democracy? Perhaps we don't even need amendments. Perhaps there should be support for Quebec Native Women, which is trying to change the attitude that people have adopted toward the Indian Act. There's been brainwashing after 126 years, and we now hope to be talking about democracy, whereas that was a supreme law in our communities, where a minister and his department decide for us.

    I just want to give you an example. In an Innu community on the Lower North Shore, women have had the right to attend Band council meetings as observers for only 10 years. In the history of Quebec women, if we compare ourselves to others, we're pretty advanced.

    So women and some men have to deal with this law and this attitude in the communities. I feel that concrete measures, projects and programs should be introduced to reverse the effects of this brainwashing that has been aimed at our community and that we should be talking about citizen participation, talking about democracy, talking about the right to speak and also talking about self-government, about the way we can do things among ourselves.

    I say that in passing, but the law prevents us from doing those things. So if I've answered your question...

¼  (1830)  

    Mr. Yvan Loubier: Thank you.

[English]

    The Chair: Merci beaucoup.

    Mr. Martin, for five minutes.

    Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you.

    You raised so many excellent points. I guess I'll ask you to speak to one point that was made during a presentation by aboriginal women in Manitoba.

    Some people who promote this bill say that the Canadian Human Rights Act or human rights code will now apply, and therefore in regard to some of the issues you've raised you will have recourse to make a complaint under the human rights code. But the aboriginal women in Manitoba who made the presentation said that was a blunt instrument, that was a tool that was not useful because it takes years to have a complaint heard under the human rights code, and that there are enforcement issues, etc. So they didn't accept that. So I'd ask you to speak to that.

    The second question I'll ask is about the Native Women's Association of Canada. They are opposed to Bill C-7 and they found their funding withdrawn, while a brand-new native women's association was created immediately that supports Bill C-7 and was given $2 million to promote the bill.

    Could you speak about whether you think the human rights code would be a useful instrument to address the problems you raised, and the cynicism associated with bribing people into supporting Bill C-7?

[Translation]

    Ms. Michèle Audette: The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is very, very important for Quebec Native Women. Yes, we can understand the complications when we go to court and argue section 15 on equality rights, but for Quebec Native Women, it's really important that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms apply. We feel that, once our communities have agreements and treaties with governments and have their Aboriginal charter, we will have to ensure that there is protection for equality rights, fundamental rights, human rights and, of course, rights acquired since 1985. Yes, that can take time, but, right now, there's nothing for us, so we need the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

    With regard to NWAC and NAWA, I want it to be clear here that Quebec Native Women is a member of NWAC, that it does not necessarily support NAWA's efforts, but it's women who have the right to speak, who have the right to mobilize. So much the better.

    NWAC rejects the governance bill; it has lost financially. I must tell you that funding for Quebec Native Women is also in danger since we rejected the governance bill: a funny coincidence.

¼  (1835)  

[English]

    Mr. Pat Martin: That's terrible to think that the two are tied together in any way. It's absolutely ridiculous.

    Well, thank you, that helps out.

    Speaking more specifically, I understand the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is an avenue of recourse. My understanding is that being able to file complaints to the human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act, is one of the elements of Bill C-7 that virtually everybody agrees is a good thing.

    The point has been made that it was not a substitute for having the issues you raised addressed specifically in the bill.

    Do you understand the difference?

[Translation]

    Ms. Michèle Audette: Perhaps I'll alter my answer to take advantage of what little time I have. When I met the minister, he told me that there were currently 200 court cases against him as the representative of Indian Affairs and that they were mainly about membership. So, with Bill C-7, he told me that we would henceforth be going to court amongst ourselves. I answered him that that wasn't a problem for me, that, if there was self-government, we'd go to court against our leaders, against our communities or against the entities in our communities, but that, in that case, he would be the first person responsible for the Indian Act, that he had a fiduciary responsibility toward the First Nations and thus that I would be going to court against him, even after Bill C-7, because it was he who was going to ensure that the Indian Act applied on our reserves. I wanted to alter my answer that way.

[English]

    Mr. Pat Martin: That's an excellent point as well.

    Do I have one moment left?

    The Chair: Five seconds.

    Mr. Pat Martin: I'll pass, thank you.

    The Chair: Mr. Bagnell, five minutes.

    Mr. Larry Bagnell: Merci.

    Ms. Gabriel, first of all, I want to thank you for an excellent presentation.

    Unfortunately, sometimes you have to keep pushing governments on your issues. I'm glad you keep bringing them up and raising them. Some of them are not in Bill C-7. Bill C-7, as you know, is only dealing with a small area of governance, so whether that's right or wrong, I'm going to limit my remarks on that part. But it's great that we have these others on the record.

    Ms. Gabriel, it was interesting when you said that band councils don't represent a majority of first nations peoples in Canada. I'm assuming that reflects the need for a governance bill, and perhaps not this one, for at least the updating of those types of provisions.

    Then I'm interested in point two of your speech itself, where you're saying that clause 5 could allow for even more discrimination. I'm curious as to why you feel there would be even more than now under clause 5, which allows the first nation to have another system of governance. Hopefully, that would deal with some of the concerns you've raised about discriminatory governance.

    Ms. Michèle Audette: Okay. As I said before

[Translation]

in French, that's a provision that will disproportionately affect reinstated women and their children because, at the outset, they were forced to leave the community and most of them now have trouble getting housing.

    What's happening now is that the people who are off the reserves can't vote in their communities. The Corbiere decision is supposed to change that way of doing things, but the communities that adopted the code of customs for elections don't necessarily take the people off the reservations into consideration.

    Will clause 5 resolve that situation? How will women who have been forced to leave their reserves and who are living off-reserve go about taking part in the democratic life of their communities? How will they be able to vote and so on? That's one of our concerns. Are they going to solve an old existing problem?

¼  (1840)  

[English]

    Ms. Ellen Gabriel: I should also maybe give you a small history lesson, so bear with me. The nation I come from, the Mohawk Nation, is part of the Iroquois Confederacy. We were one of the oldest democracies on this planet, and that was undermined by the Indian Act. Many people reject the band council's authority because we believe we are sovereign people and the band councils are just another department of the Department of Indian Affairs.

    So when we listen to our president here explain to you about the discrimination that's going on, you have to understand that the Assembly of First Nations does not represent the majority of aboriginal people for those kinds of reasons. There are different reasons for the Mi'kmaq Nation, but again they're asserting their sovereignty.

    The question is, how can we trust the Government of Canada, which has for so long discriminated against indigenous people, to come up with some laws that will benefit us? In the long term this governance act will just municipalize our sovereign territories that we have not ceded. As Madame Audette said before, in 40 years you won't see anybody who is considered to be an Indian under the Indian Act.

    I'll give you an example of children who are discriminated against by Bill C-31. Traditional people hold their own birth certificates; they do not get them from the province in which they reside. So when the child of two parents, who are supposedly full-blooded, turns 18 they lose their status and are no longer permitted to have any services given to them because their parents chose to register them under their own birth certificate. That's another part of discrimination against the children because Canada refuses to recognize us for who we are, as people living in coexistence in a nation within a nation.

    There's no way I can honestly accept Minister Nault's assertion that the majority of indigenous people have accepted this consultation process. This is a total and outlandish lie.

    On the human rights code, when child pornography was going on in my community, not one single authority would come to help us--not the RCMP or the SQ.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    We're at six minutes. We're one minute over.

[Translation]

Now we can do a three-minute round table.

    Mr. Loubier.

    Mr. Yvan Loubier: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to pick it up and speak a bit quickly.

    You mentioned something troubling a moment ago, Ms. Audette, and Ms. Gabriel referred to it again a few minutes ago. You said that the government's purpose is different from your own, that it wants to assimilate you and ensure you disappear in 40 years.

    I would like you to explain that statement a little further because I find it rings a bell in my mind as a Francophone Quebecker.

    The second troubling thing you said concerns your funding. You said that, since you have objected to Bill C-7 and other bills relating to this Ottawa steamroller, your funding has been threatened. If you have anything, evidence to bring forward on that point, I would like you to do so because that's an unacceptable attitude.

    I'm going to leave you with that because time is getting short.

    Ms. Michèle Audette: I'll try to be brief. Since 1985, there have been classes of registered Indians under subsections 6(1) and (2) of the Indian Act. I should also mention that, since 1985, mothers have been required to disclose the names of the fathers; otherwise it is automatically assumed that the father is a non-native white man.

    The statistics have shown that there are a lot of young mothers heading single-parent families. Their children have fallen into class 6(2) for the past 15 years, since 1985, when the act entered into effect. Fifteen years later, these women are single parents and their children are not recognized at all because they belong to class 6(2), since they have no father, and those children have become proper Canadians.

    According to the studies done by the Department of Indian Affairs, a lot of children belong to class 6(2). There are thousands and thousands of them in Canada. We're talking about young mothers, in those statistics, who will not have any recognition of paternity. We're already losing a lot of natives there. In addition, they have no say in the way things are done to transmit status. That's unfortunate, but the power to transmit status is still given to the man, if he wants to acknowledge paternity. The problem is really with the classes under subsections 6(1) and (2).

    We also feel there is a lack of knowledge of that. We at the Association are trying to sensitize young people in the communities by telling them that, under the current framework, if they go with non-natives, that will be the status of their children. People don't know that. If the father doesn't sign, that will be the status of their children. So there's really a lot of work to do on this.

    To come back to the funding question, we have an agreement with Canadian Heritage for funding of $113,000 for an association that must cover all of Quebec, with major, major issues. After we rejected governance, we were told that was a risk. It was a risk, but that hurt! We were told that we had no more money for this year and that we wouldn't have any more for other years. We would have to apply on a project basis to see if that worked. And at the same time, we had projects with the Department of Indian Affairs, Quebec Region. That was for peanuts; we're talking about $50,000, but we had mobilized our people for $50,000, and once governance was officially rejected by fax, we received $4,000.

¼  (1845)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

[English]

    Mr. Martin is next for three minutes.

    Mr. Pat Martin: Well, I'm as disappointed to hear that as Mr. Loubier. There should be no connection whatsoever between your political point of view and your access to stable core funding in the constituency you represent. I think it's a cynical move, and I'm glad you have it on the record.

    I'd ask you to comment on the general theme that's come up across the country that it undermines the very idea of self-governance to impose governance rules on a people, when surely an aspect of self-governance is the right to develop your own governing institutions that are relevant, practical, and sensitive to your customs and traditions.

    Would that be a fair assessment of your view of the larger picture of self-governance?

    Ms. Ellen Gabriel: The question would be, how can you be self-governing when you assert your sovereignty to try to control the development of your resources and are attacked for it? The Government of Canada has made so many rules against us and so many fraudulent sales that it's impossible to do that in a way a nation would to have economic growth and development for your community.

    You can't have that if you're always depending on the Government of Canada to issue you money. You can't have that when you live on postage-stamp-sized pieces of land and your populations are getting bigger.

    I think the First Nations Governance Act will take a system that's already corrupt and make it more corrupt. It will be to the benefit of the Canadian government.

    There is corruption within band council systems, and I'll give you an example. When $150,000 was missing in my band council and different people in the services asked how we could get an audit, get this back, and make someone accountable for it, the Department of Indian Affairs just told us to wait for the next budget to come in. So they encourage that kind of corruption.

    How are we to trust someone to make those decisions on what self-governance will be when all along they've been undermining and encouraging that kind of dysfunction and corruption in our community?

¼  (1850)  

    Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you.

    The Chair: Ms. Karetak-Lindell.

    Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: Thank you.

    I guess you can use my three minutes to talk about number 2, on page 19. I realize we were talking apples and oranges the last time. So if I can just get you to clarify....

[Translation]

    The Chair: Ms. Audette, when you answer Ms. Karetak-Lindell's question, you can simply continue on and make your closing remarks at the same time.

    Ms. Michèle Audette: Thank you very much. That means I have...

    The Chair: You have enough time; you have seven minutes.

    Ms. Michèle Audette: Over the years, long before I arrived, and even today, we have received complaints at the Association from reinstated women who have not had access to the programs and services to which they were entitled in their community because they were governed by Bill C-31 or their children belonged to class 6(2).

    When we saw this problem, we women thought that we had to go and cut, at source, funding for those programs, which are the housing, education, health and social services programs. We figured that, if those women were subject to discrimination because they had had the misfortune to fall in love with someone other than a person from their nation, that was unacceptable and that we would have to bring pressure to bear on the Department of Indian Affairs, Health Canada and the other departments that provide funding to the communities in order to tell them to stop closing their eyes to the discrimination against reinstated women and do something. We never received an answer, and so our patience has limits. That's why we say in our brief that perhaps funding should be cut.

    We're asking a lot, but we're doing so because this is what happens in our communities, in some of our communities; I should say “some” of our communities.

    So we feel that, if we can solve this problem at its source, which is funding, that will force the communities to change attitudes, because a change of attitude is necessary, but that also has to force the Department of Indian Affairs to open its eyes and admit that these women are discriminated against and therefore review its way of providing funding in those communities.

    There's also a quite concrete example of Native women. In Bill C-7, there's no mention of protection against marital violence. Women go to shelters in native communities. Here in Quebec, we were able to see that, out of five shelters funded by the Department of Indian Affairs, one received one or two Native women a year, whereas it should cover the entire territory of a number of communities in the same nation. So if you look at the geography, it's not complicated: there are three major nations in Quebec. But I'll tell you right away where this is happening.

    So we told the Department of Indian Affairs to stop funding one shelter that had no clientele, and to provide funding instead where there was a real need. The department answered that it couldn't do that, that it had an agreement with them and that that would look bad, that it did not want to break off its relationship with that community. I answered that we were talking about survival because we're talking about an 80 percent rate of marital violence in our communities. So that shelter should be operating at 100 percent of its capacity. We told them to find something. Otherwise we would ultimately denounce the situation openly.

    It's for this kind of thing that we say that the government must absolutely cut its funding and reallocate it elsewhere. I don't know what it can do, but things have to change.

    In closing, I wish to tell you that you have obviously heard the point of view from my mouth, from my heart. I've been working with Quebec Native Women for four years now, but, like Obélix, I fell into it when I was a baby, because my mother is its founding member. The women here, at my sides, are pillars of Quebec Native Women; they have been here for a long time, as have those behind us.

    We have a young generation today that wants to take its place, its rightful place, and it's not with a bill like C-7 that we're going to be able to take our place. We also feel we can't do things all alone; you must absolutely ensure that this bill does not pass, but that we talk about real things that women are demanding, fundamental things, things that are at the heart of our concerns.

    Why are we treated differently? I ask you that. Go off with that this evening and make changes, please, because I breathe like you, I talk like you. I'm trying to take my place in your society, and I would like to be able to say one day that, instead of surviving in my society, in my nation, I can live in it. I'm leaving that in your hands.

    Thank you very much.

¼  (1855)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Audette and your colleagues.

    I would like to say a few words on my own behalf. Like most other members, I am in politics because I don't like the way things are going. One day, when I'm completely happy with the way things are managed, I'll be off fishing. You've shown us that you aren't satisfied either with the way things work. I would be honoured to share a seat in Ottawa with someone like you because I see everything you could contribute. I'll leave you with that.

    Ms. Michèle Audette: Thank you.

    The Chair: We will now hear from the Barreau du Québec, Ms. Carole Brosseau, Lawyer, and also Ms. Renée Dupuis.

    Good evening. We have an hour together. We invite you to make a presentation, which will be followed by a question period.

    Ms. Carole Brosseau (Lawyer, Research and Legislation, "Barreau du Québec"): Good evening. Allow me to introduce myself. My name is Carole Brosseau. I believe this is the first time we've had the honour of coming to take part in the work of this committee. The Barreau du Québec has quite a tradition of testifying before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. So it makes me very happy to be here this evening.

    I'm accompanied by Ms. Renée Dupuis.

    The Chair: I ask people in the room to respect our witnesses, please. Discussions take place outside the room, please.

    Excuse me, Ms. Brosseau.

    Ms. Carole Brosseau: That's all right.

    I'm accompanied by Ms. Renée Dupuis, who is highly qualified in native law and who is also, in a way, guiding the destiny of the Barreau du Québec's Native Law Committee.

    That committee was established recently. It has been in existence since 1992, and, to date, we have mainly been training our members. We have also opened up training to other persons apart from our members.

    In addition, for some years now, we have been intervening more aggressively, and we want to participate more in exercises of the same kind as the one here today.

    For example, a few years ago, we presented to the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples a brief on the redefinition of relations between the Aboriginal peoples, citizens as a whole and the law. A second brief followed, but only on the question of criminal justice. As you will understand, the Barreau du Québec is mainly concerned with criminal justice, particularly since we represent our members, more than 19,000 persons.

    More recently, in February, we appeared before the Quebec Committee on Institutions on the general agreement in principle between the First Nations of Mamuitun and Natashkuan and the governments of Quebec and Canada.

    Lawyers' code of professional conduct requires them to be objective and moderate in all circumstances. The minister has clearly demonstrated his intention to move ahead with the bill under study, Bill C-7. On those grounds, although the Barreau du Québec is also very much aware of certain objections to the bill, we have decided to adopt as our position the fact that we will conduct a legal assessment of the bill rather than consider its appropriateness, leaving it to other witnesses to discuss that possibility more with you. The purpose of our position then is mainly to improve the bill because we believe that the broader consultation you are currently conducting is for that purpose, and we would like to contribute to the extent of our abilities and of our role.

    If we consider the history of the Indian Act, which is the basis of the process in which we currently find ourselves, we see that it dates back to 1876 and was mainly based on policies developed in the nineteenth century. Even today, the Indian Act has somewhat the same make-up and content.

    The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, to paraphrase Tom Siddon, a former Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs, concluded that, although the Indian Act was repealed, no real change could occur without first abandoning the attitudes and assumptions that led to the passage of statutes such as the Indian Act and those that preceded it.

    Later on, passage of the Constitution Act, 1982, and, in particular, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms gave rise to certain judicial decisions. The Corbiere judgment and the findings of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples tended in the same direction. One thus could not disregard the conclusions of the Corbiere judgment or the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples calling for radical change for the social and economic development of Native peoples.

    In the case of Bill C-7, we understand that Parliament opted to add another statute without proceeding to repeal. In addition, you must be very much aware that Bill C-7 on governance and the Indian Act will have to coexist with the entire body of legislation, which is already very extensive and contains laws of general application which are applied specifically to Aboriginals, but which govern all Canadians.

½  (1900)  

    We have understood that, through Bill C-7, the government is attempting to make substantial changes to the governance of Indian bands while trying to plan for the future.

    As we said earlier, although we are aware of the opposition the bill may raise, we believe that the process will be able to correct things. That is why we are here today.

    I would also like to emphasize one point. The government, of which you are a part, must be very aware that this reform will require financial and human resources in order to implement it. It should not be forgotten that this bill must apply to more than 600 First Nations communities or bands which are currently governed by the Indian Act. Although some communities have more than 2,000 members, a number have fewer than 500 inhabitants and are spread over a vast territory. So resources will be needed, along with moral, financial, training and educational support and a form of publicity, matching with Aboriginal societies.

    Now let's turn to specific comments, which is the purpose of our presentation. I'm really going to follow the order of the bill; that is to say that I will start with the preamble.

    First of all, there's an elaborate preamble. It presents certain principles which, as it emphasizes, are dear to Canadians. It must be understood that neither case law nor doctrine necessarily attach very great value to the preamble. In other words, although the preamble may seem relevant, case law and doctrine give it much more moral than legal value. We must be aware of that. The preamble will be somewhat disregarded. The only case in which greater value is attached to the preamble is perhaps in constitutional matters, which is not the case of Bill C-7. The weight of the preamble therefore poses a problem.

    Our attention is drawn to two definitions. The first is the definition of “band funds”. In our opinion, those funds include most of the revenues generated by the band, but expressly exclude Indian monies within the meaning of the Indian Act, that is to say the money received or held by the Crown for the use and benefit of the bands. This is a new concept, and we believe that some aligning should be done, or else it will make things very hard, particularly since--and I don't think we're the first witness to mention this--we currently find it hard to understand what Indian monies actually are. Don't forget that the two statutes must coexist; so this can cause problems when there are conflicts.

    Then let's look at the definition of “eligible voter”. In the definition of “eligible voter”, there's a difference between the definition contained in the Indian Act and the bill on governance of the First Nations. Since Parliament is not deemed to speak in vain, we believe it wanted to distinguish the two positions.

    Furthermore, in this case as well, there is a problem of alignment because, under the Indian Act, eligible voters may make decisions on questions such as land transfers and designations.

    However, in the governance bill, the definition of “eligible voter” is limited to the adoption of codes. We wonder about this exclusion which is made here.

Now to talk to you about governance and the powers of the council, I'm going to give the floor to my colleague, Ms. Dupuis. Thank you.

½  (1905)  

    Ms. Renée Dupuis (Commissioner, Indian Claims Commission): Good evening, ladies and gentlemen members of the committee. I would like to draw your attention to certain points which we find particularly problematical from a technical standpoint in terms of band governance, and I refer you to page 9 of our brief, point 2.3.

    The first point I would like to address with you is the fact that the bill provides that the bands will have to adopt codes. We have seen that that concerns leadership selection, and government and financial management, all within the frameworks defined in this bill. What we observe and what we feel, as the Barreau du Québec, is that the rules set out in the bill seem very complicated and, in our view, will require major government support to ensure, first in terms of education for community members, that if we really want people to take part in the development, discussion and adoption of these statutes, first we will have to ensure that they are well informed, that they understand the issues and that means and mechanisms are put at their disposal so that they can actually participate.

    The second point to which we wish to draw your attention with regard to band governance is clause 5(2)(b), which provides that, where a band was not subject to the election procedures provided for the Indian Act, the leadership selection codes will have to be constituted mainly from custom rules. Clause 5(3) provides that a code consisting of custom rules may be adopted only during the period of two years beginning on the coming into force of this section.

    However, it seems to us that the customary right to elect one's leaders is an extremely important right which has been received in Canadian law. It is a customary right which exists, which is recognized, and we think the two-year time period is much too short because failure to adopt a code within the two-year period will necessarily result in the extinction of that customary right. And with regard to the constitutional protections of Aboriginal rights which exist in the Constitution of 1982, we find this poses a particularly crucial problem.

    Accordingly, we believe that this period should be extended to ensure that the bands still governed by custom can maintain this right and be aware that they have a defined period to keep their right in effect.

    As for the precedence of codes over other statutory instruments, be they regulations or by-laws under the Indian Act or other federal acts or regulations, the governance bill provides that the instruments adopted by the band councils, what are called “laws” here, will be called either laws or codes. Thus, they will always meet the definition of federal regulations within the meaning of the federal Interpretation Act, which are part of the exercise of a power conferred under a federal statute, disregarding the inherent right. However, case law has established that, in case of conflict, federal statutes currently prevail over the by-laws adopted by bands under the Indian Act and that a federal statute therefore always takes precedence over regulation made under an act.

    Subclause 18(3) of the bill continued this rule of precedence. It is also a rule that has been recognized in case law, particularly in labour relations, which provides an example of what we call the limited content of the legislative powers recognized by governance statutes.

    The financial management code must include rules respecting the remuneration of members of the council and employees of the band.

    According to the Canada Labour Relations Board, in a case involving the Red Bank First Nation, the provisions of such a code may not contradict another act passed by Parliament, such as the Canada Labour Code.

½  (1910)  

    Ms. Renée Dupuis: Again, according to that interpretation, and if the employees of a band were unionized, once the notice to bargain collectively was given, or once the collective agreement was negotiated, the band council would be unable to amend either wages rate or other benefits without violating sections of the Canada Labour Code, because that act of Parliament prevails over the code that will be adopted under this bill which is bound to become law.

    Thus, unlike the federal government, which, through its statutes, can supersede the collective agreements it has negotiated, the band councils will be bound by the act passed by Parliament, notwithstanding the provisions they have included in their financial management codes.

    The second point to which we wish to draw your attention in this regard is the fact that the bill contains only two provisions concerning conflicts between other statutory instruments and the codes adopted under the bill, such as the code adopted under clause 4(2) on band members. It is not stated that the codes will prevail over laws made for local purposes. The bill refers to codes and laws made for local purposes, but there are no rules defining the precedence of either one of those statutory instruments, even though, logically, and based on a reading of clauses 16 and 17, the codes would take precedence. This point should be clarified.

    However, the regulations made by the Governor in Council under clause 32, which would stand instead of codes for members not adopting codes within the prescribed time period, would prevail over all laws made by a council.

    This different approach, which the Barreau du Québec considers more productive, is the one adopted in the federal government's Kanesatake Interim Land Base Governance Act. Under that act, the legislative authority of the band council over the territory is subject to adoption of a land code. We therefore draw your attention to this different mechanism provided for in the Kanesatake act. In our view, this is something that could be important and could apply to advantage in a situation such as the one contemplated here.

    The third point to which we wish to draw your attention is clause 11, which concerns the establishment of an office or position which would be conferred on an impartial person or body to consider fairly and expeditiously any complaint by a member of the band or a resident of the reserve.

    At first glance, this office appears to be within the power of an ombudsman. However, provision is made for the possibility of ordering matters, which already exceeds the power of recommendation. We believe that this provision is promising and that a number of persons in the Aboriginal communities may welcome it.

    On the other hand, we find the introduction and implementation of that provision is somewhat illusory to the extent that, once a decision is made, there's no mechanism to make it enforceable. If the band council does not act on an order from the person in question, a state of limbo arises.

    The bill should include a provision which, as in criminal law, would ensure that the effect of the measure and of the entire mechanism, which is promising in itself, does not become null and void and an illusory remedy.

    Another point we would like to emphasize is that provided for in clause 13 of the bill, which stipulates that the council may withhold sums of money that band members would owe it. The council would thus have the sole right to determine the size of members' debt toward it.

    We believe this provision opens the door to abuses and hardship because the debts of the band council could be paid not only out of wages, but also by other types of benefits such as welfare, for example. We consider this aspect very problematical.

    In addition, we think that the fact the council has the possibility of making these decisions on its authority alone jeopardizes the fundamental right to an impartial hearing. Consequently, this does not prevent a judgment from being rendered without a hearing, in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice protected by the Canadian Bill of Rights.

½  (1915)  

    In that sense, we think that clause 13 is very vulnerable to challenges under section 2 of the Canadian Bill of Rights.

    Now I would like to draw your attention to a few aspects of the powers provided for the council. A clarification is made in terms of legal capacity. I think that's important. The band will have the same legal capacity as a natural person. Subclause 15(2) also provides that the band's capacity shall be exercised by its council. Subclause 15(3) adds that the band's capacity does not affect the legal status of a band or have the effect of incorporating the band.

    In addition, it is stated that subsection 2(3) of the Indian Act will be replaced by what is provided here, by virtue of which the powers conferred on the council by the act are exercised in accordance with the band government code or, in the absence of such a code, of the regulations.

    We think it important, if we're going to legislate and clarify the question of the council's legal capacity, that there be a bridge or a link between the band council's capacity and its powers. Does its capacity as a natural person go beyond, for example, the legislative powers conferred on it under this act? That's a real problem which has arisen in the past few years, and, in our view, this would be an opportunity to clarify it.

    In terms of law-making powers, clauses 16 and 17 of the bill would amend sections 81, 83 and 85.1 of the Indian Act in that they restate the essential points of those sections but amend the scope of the powers by increasing the council's law-making powers for local purposes, for example, for the prevention of damage to property, the provision of services by the band or residential tenancies, or for the band's needs for the protection and conservation of natural resources on the reserve and the preservation of the band's language and culture.

    It is important to bear in mind that the term “band laws”, which is used from there on in the bill, replaces what was called “by-laws” in the Indian Act. However, the expanded powers of the band councils remain subject to any federal statutory provision with which they might conflict. Clause 16 determines their scope. Hitherto, this provision, that is to say the one in the Indian Act, has been interpreted as concerning only federal regulations made under the Indian Act or federal regulations made under that act by the government of the Minister of Indian Affairs, which means that we are thus expanding the degree of compatibility that will be required of the new laws made by the band councils.

    In the same line of thinking, we want to draw your attention to the fact that, section 85.1 of the Indian Act currently provides for an obligation for band members to be consulted and to assent to the adoption of by-laws concerning intoxicants, which will disappear under the bill as it is currently drafted.

    We wish to draw your attention to a second point. The bill contains what we consider a somewhat vague expression, where it refers, in clauses 16, 17 and 18, to the power to “make laws”. The terms “prohibition” and “prohibited purposes” are not always used clearly. We think, and this is established in case law, that, when Parliament delegates the power to regulate a thing or an activity, that power does not include the power to prohibit or interdict another activity or related activity.

    We therefore think it is important, in addition to what already appears in certain parts of clauses 16 and 17, that, if we want to recognize the power to prohibit, as is recognized in other cases, such as in the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act, provision should be made at this time to say so clearly and

    I give the floor back to Ms. Brosseau.

½  (1920)  

    Ms. Carole Brosseau: If I have a few minutes, I have three or four points to emphasize.

    First, I would like to talk about the particular status. This is in fact for information, as mentioned in the brief, with respect to the status of band officer. Since 2000 in Quebec, the new Police Act has provided that band councils and the Minister of Public Security may enter into specific agreements.

    Although the bill states that the band enforcement officer will not have the same powers as a peace officer, with regard to inspections and searches, among other things, in Quebec, because of those agreements, the problem will not arise: the band enforcement officer will have the powers of a peace officer. From the citizen's standpoint, this is an additional guarantee in my view.

    As to the general provisions, as my colleague said, some regulatory powers of the Governor in Council are provided for in clauses 31, 32 and 33. That regulatory power, unlike the codes, will be subject to the Statutory Instruments Act. However, that act does not set out the prepublication date or even provide for the possibility that the House may know the content of those regulations.

    However, as we know, those regulations will be very important, particularly if Parliament does not want to change the two-year period for making and implementing the codes.

    As the government has done for other bills--we can mention, among others, the new Immigration and Refugee Protection Act--we suggest that a prepublication date be provided for regulations. In view of the Governor in Council's exceptional power, we suggest that prepublication also be possible. In that case, provision should be made for this in the bill. If you wanted to go further, you could, as a committee, table those draft regulations in the House, which would enable us to testify before you to analyze their content.

    Lastly, the final point I want to raise concerns the amendments made to section 41 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Essentially, this provision is an interpretation clause in the case of “a complaint made... against an Aboriginal governmental organization”. The Barreau du Québec has certain reservations on this question and would prefer, rather than create a vague new concept, to refer to the definition we already know, which refers to “any band or body under the authority of the band council”. That would avoid any case law interpretation, which would make for a more certain interpretation of this provision.

    Lastly, in conclusion, I would say that it is crucial--we mentioned this in the introduction, but I think it is important to repeat it--to recognize that the government has a responsibility to provide adequate resources that will make it possible to implement the bill. Otherwise, the act's survival and application could be seriously jeopardized, particularly as regards extinction rights. It must be kept in mind that there are situations in which certain extinction rights are provided for if things are not carried out within the prescribed times.

    Thank you.

½  (1925)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much. That was an excellent presentation. That represented a great deal of work. You didn't start working last night; it's obvious you've been at it a long time.

    We will have a round of seven minutes.

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

    Ms. Dupuis, Ms. Brosseau, thank you for these excellent and very enlightening presentations. I'm going to take the time to reread the entire brief carefully. It's a gold mine of analysis and information. I thank you for it.

    My first comment is also a question. You talk about the coexistence of the Indian Act and Bill C-7. However, from what I understand and what you have also raised, instead of simplifying relations between the federal government and the Aboriginal nations of Canada, we could well make them much more complex.

    It is out of the question that, with the adoption of Bill C-7, we should set aside the Indian Act and be able to promote more harmonious and productive relations than previously between the federal government and the Aboriginal nations.

    However, am I mistaken in saying that this coexistence between Bill C-7 and the former Indian Act could well give rise to a system that would somehow become explosive? Although we deplore what has happened in recent years in terms of legal remedies and battles between the federal government and the Aboriginal nations, I don't think we've seen anything yet. Do you agree?

    Ms. Renée Dupuis: What I think is important to understand is that we've just added a statutory instrument to a body of legislation. So there isn't just Bill C-7 that will be added to the Indian Act. In some cases--let's stay within Quebec only--the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act will be added to it, as will the Kanesatake Interim Land Base Governance Act.

    So it is correct to say that we are building a legislative whole in which things are superimposed on one another. Some are replaced, but in those that are superimposed, based on the analysis we have conducted, new concepts are created that we don't think are clear and there are superimposed layers that appear to lack alignment.

    Mr. Yvan Loubier: When the federal government talks to us about a step toward self-government of the Aboriginal nations, what I understand from the numerous instances in which federal statutes and regulations take precedence is that, far from tending toward self-government, we are distancing ourselves from it. We are ensuring that the federal guardianship over Aboriginal affairs will remain and remain in full, with all the varying ambiguity resulting from legislative coexistence.

    Is my analysis of that distorted, or is it an accurate analysis?

    Ms. Carole Brosseau: In part. I would say that we understand from clause 34 of the bill that, if you will, it will enable the government to exempt a band or community from the application of the Governance Act by order for a preestablished period of time. We understood from that provision that Parliament wanted to promote self-government agreements. This provision serves as a loophole. Will it be sufficient? I don't know. Otherwise we'll be seeing it in future, but the attempt was nevertheless made through this provision to foster agreements.

    Will it be sufficient? We can't measure the... We think we understand that this is nevertheless the government's intention.

½  (1930)  

    Ms. Renée Dupuis: With your permission, I would add that, referring to clause 35 of the bill, we clearly see that self-government has been implemented in various contexts. The first case of exemption is the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act, which stems from a land claims agreement in the same way as the Nisga'a Final Agreement, whereas the Sechelt Indian Band Self-Government Act originally had nothing to do with a land claims context.

    So we realize that the concept of self-government is a very, very broad concept which can be implemented under various banners and in various legal contexts of negotiation, legislation and, ultimately, constitutionally.

    Mr. Yvan Loubier: Since you're here--and I'm very pleased that you are here--I've wondered for a number of weeks about another bill which is somewhat related to Bill C-7. That's Bill C-6, which you have no doubt considered and which concerns specific Aboriginal claims.

    Is it normal practice, normal legal usage to set a maximum amount for damages before hearing the claim, before analyzing and before rendering judgment on that claim? Amounts of $7 or $8 million are provided for.

[English]

Is it $7 million or $8 million?

    Mr. Pat Martin: Yes, it's capped.

[Translation]

    Mr. Yvan Loubier: All right. Is it normal practice to set a maximum amount for damages before assessing and before a judge has ruled on those damages? I've been dying to ask you that question for a long time, and I now have the opportunity to put it to you.

    Ms. Carole Brosseau: The committee and the Barreau have indeed examined Bill C-6. We saw that provision and we decided not to offer an opinion on it. As you will understand, we are acting as representatives of the Barreau, and it is difficult for us to answer that question officially without its consent.

    Mr. Yvan Loubier: When we consider Bill C-6, can we count on you to examine this question and give us a timely answer? It's killing me; you have no idea.

    Ms. Carole Brosseau: I suggest you write to the president and...

    Mr. Yvan Loubier: Perfect. Thank you.

    The Chair: It may cost you a certain amount of money per hour to get a reply because it's not...

    Mr. Yvan Loubier: I'll send the bill to the committee.

    The Chair: The committee is concerned with Bill C-7, but, if you want specific information on Bill C-6, that may cost you money.

[English]

    Mr. Martin.

    Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to you both for a very useful brief. I scribbled as quickly as I could, because we have the presentation in French only. But I will have it translated at the House of Commons.

    There are a number of points I would love to ask you about.

    We heard from the Indigenous Bar Association, aboriginal lawyers. They've done an analysis and they believe Bill C-7 does, or could, infringe on inherent aboriginal rights or treaties. You made the point at the end of your remarks that if imposed, some of the default codes could result in the extinguishment of certain rights.

    Now, is it a formal opinion of the Quebec bar association that aspects of Bill C-7 could infringe on existing recognized rights?

[Translation]

    Ms. Renée Dupuis: What we thought was important to emphasize to the members of this committee is the question of the customary right, the right to elect one's leaders as a matter of custom. We chose to set aside the question as to whether that customary right is an inherent right. What we're saying today is that it's a right that has been incorporated in Canadian law as a customary right, but we chose not to consider the question whether the entire bill, if passed, constitutes an implementation of an inherent right or a violation of an inherent right to self-government.

½  (1935)  

[English]

    Mr. Pat Martin: I think I understand.

    On the duty of consultation, under Delgamuukw and other Supreme Court rulings it was made clear there is a duty to have consultation. If there is going to be infringement, that infringement has to be justified, and there's a duty to have broad consultation. We've heard from many witnesses that they weren't satisfied the consultation process met anybody's definition of a true and genuine consultation.

    Did you look at the consultation process? What, in your mind, would constitute legitimate consultation to satisfy that obligation and duty?

[Translation]

    Ms. Renée Dupuis: We have not considered whether the current public consultation mechanism chosen by your committee is an adequate form of consultation or to what extent. We didn't go that far.

[English]

    Mr. Pat Martin: I seem to be asking all the wrong questions.

    You did raise the idea that there's really no mechanism to enforce a ruling of an arbitrator, an ombudsman, or a third party, and that if the party chooses not to cooperate with the ruling, where does the griever go then, because there's no avenue of recourse.

    If you were to recommend an amendment to satisfy that, what would you suggest? Where would the person go next?

[Translation]

    Ms. Renée Dupuis: There are various options that already exist. We refer you to clause 11, which creates an office which seems to be unique in its own right because there is a power of investigation, there's a power of order. But the problem that arises is that there is no mechanism... For example, a person who received a decision from that body could file with the Federal Court, for example, and have the decision confirmed, which would make it enforceable. That's one of the techniques.

[English]

    Mr. Pat Martin: So we have the power of law, somehow.

[Translation]

    Ms. Renée Dupuis: Yes, precisely. So you would have to make that decision enforceable.

[English]

    Mr. Pat Martin: That's an excellent point.

[Translation]

    Ms. Renée Dupuis: That's a good first answer.

[English]

    Mr. Pat Martin: Yes. Well, it's an excellent point, and I will certainly raise it further in other places.

    Now, there's also--

[Translation]

    Ms. Carole Brosseau: If I may add a partial answer to your last question, earlier, we cited the example of criminal law or penal law, saying that there is an offence but no sanction. Regardless of the offence, there's going to be an opening for a kind of civil disobedience which is not necessarily sought.

    So I think that that decision absolutely has to be enforceable.

[English]

    Mr. Pat Martin: That's an excellent point, and even in the labour legislation, which I'm more up on, if you do go to the labour board or to an arbitrator and the arbitrator makes a ruling, if the company won't cooperate, you fall back to the courts, which have the power of law to back it up.

    There are also no sanctions listed for failure to comply within the two-year timeframe. If a band doesn't cooperate, if they either cannot or will not develop codes of their own, and then won't cooperate with an order of default codes, if they're just stubborn and refuse, I don't see specific sanctions or repercussions for that activity anywhere in the bill. Do you?

½  (1940)  

[Translation]

    Ms. Carole Brosseau: But the ultimate sanction will be if the Governor in Council makes regulations and imposes codes. That's the ultimate sanction.

    But what you're saying is true; there is no sanction. But an initial response is that...

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Martin.

[Translation]

    Thank you. The seven minutes are up. You will have the opportunity to make closing comments. You may add what you want.

[English]

    Ms. Karetak-Lindell.

    Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: Thank you.

    Well, thank you very much for your brief. I suffered the same problem because it was only in French, so I was unable to follow all your recommendations and interventions on the bill.

    But from the notes I did take, I was very interested in the part where you said that even though--on page 11 of the bill--this act would prevail to the extent of the conflict, you felt the Canada Labour Code would prevail over any decision a band made.

    Could you expand on that a bit and maybe give a few more examples? I know you mentioned salaries or whether a band...I'm not sure if this covers whether employees of a band joined a union; I'm not familiar with it.

    In my interpretation, I understood that even if bands made their own decision, if it contravened the Canada Labour Code, the code would prevail, even though in subclause 16(2) it says in the event of a conflict between a law made under this section and an act of Parliament, the act would prevail to the extent of the conflict.

    Can you clarify the statements you made and whether I interpreted them correctly?

[Translation]

    Ms. Renée Dupuis: In fact, the most important point to which we want to draw the attention of committee members is the fact that, in the context of the present act--I'm going to try to be clear--section 81 provides that the band council has the authority--and it is defined in this way--to make, and thus to adopt, by-laws that must be compatible with the Indian Act or with any federal regulation made under the Indian Act.

    So the band council's law-making power, its power to adopt by-laws, may be exercised on condition that the by-laws adopted are compatible with the Indian Act or regulations passed under that act, whereas, if you go to the bill, where you are, at the bottom of page 11, you see that, in sub-clause 16(2), it states:

(2) In the event of a conflict between a law made under this section and an Act of Parliament or any regulations made under an Act of Parliament, the Act or the regulations prevail to the extent of the conflict.

    In other words, you see clearly that there is an expansion and, in that sense, an obligation of compatibility for laws henceforth adopted by a band council. The constraint is much greater in terms of compatibility. Under the current system, by-laws must be compatible only with the Indian Act or regulations passed under the Indian Act, whereas the law-making power that will be exercised will have to be exercised in a manner compatible with all federal statutes and regulations passed under those statutes.

    That's the point to which we wanted to draw your attention. It's not negligible, and you see clearly that it's an additional constraint relative to the present system.

½  (1945)  

    Ms. Carole Brosseau: In fact, it's as though a broader analysis of the legislation were being required. The Aboriginal communities are really being given a law-making power, but more is required of them, hence the importance of providing them with support; I'll come back to that.

    Ms. Renée Dupuis: That also means that a different framework would now be provided for the law-making power conferred on the band council, that is to say that the right to exercise a law-making power would now be framed by more federal statutes than currently in the present system.

    Does that clarify things?

[English]

    Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: To an extent. But I'm trying to interpret it further. Is that good or bad? I'm not sure what you're saying here. Is that good for the bands or not? I'm not getting that.

[Translation]

    Ms. Renée Dupuis: I suppose that the answer to a question such as this depends on one's perspective and the political party you belong to.

    Our concern, as the Barreau du Québec, is to tell you this here this evening, that there must be an awareness of the fact that, if the present system is changed, there is an increase in the requirement of compatibility of the law-making power exercised by the bands with federal legislation as a whole. Thus, you would no longer be required to ensure that it is only compatible with the Indian Act and its regulations, but also that it be compatible with all federal statutes and their regulations.

[English]

    Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: It is still confusing me to a point. We keep complaining that the Indian Act is too restrictive, that it contravenes everything that people in the rest of the country have to abide by, and that it limits their rights to a point where their rights are not the same as every Canadian. Now you are telling me that their law-making powers will be the same as all Canadians, but that is restrictive.

    I'm trying to understand what side of the fence my interpretation is going to go to, because I'm not getting a really clear picture here.

[Translation]

    The Chair: I'm going to give you the opportunity to answer, but first I want to emphasize the fact that you have raised the possibility of problems in your profession. In the room, there are representatives of the Department of Justice, some of your colleagues. I saw them take notes. If some of your members appear before the court against the government, they will have to provide a defence. So you will at least have the opportunity later to tell them you told them so.

    We have 10 minutes left. I grant them to you so that you can make any comments you choose.

    Ms. Carole Brosseau: On the one hand, the comments we have made today were, as I told you, more legal comments. What we wanted to put on the table was points we thought it was important to bring to the attention of the committee and its members.

    Once we've given you the information, I believe it's your role, and no longer ours, as the Barreau... The role of the Barreau du Québec is a legislative role of protecting the public and all its members and to take part in the development of a new social contract for all citizens, including Indians. But beyond that, we think the role is yours. Through this intervention, we have tried, as we have done in all our interventions, to fuel your debates and to make you understand the problems we see.

    The legislative process is a democratic process. We have taken the path that was open to us, and, in return, we hope that you will accept the information and act on it to improve the act and ensure greater justice, because that is our objective.

    I believe that somewhat supplements what we said. For your information, we sent our brief for translation. Mr. Cadorette can confirm that for you. I believe I spoke to you or Ms. Kingston yesterday. So you can take a more detailed look at it. We added a little more detail on this bill.

    By the way, if you need any additional information, you can send us your questions. We will be pleased to answer them in writing.

    Thank you.

½  (1950)  

    Ms. Renée Dupuis: I would briefly add two points, with your permission. It seems to us, at the Barreau, that, if the choice is to add a piece of legislation to the existing body, there is a need to clarify concepts which seem new relative to what we know and what we don't feel is clear in the bill. So there's a need for clarification and a need for alignments and adjustments in the superimposition or replacement of those bills. That's my first point.

    The second point is a reminder of what we told you a little earlier concerning this entire operation, which we feel is of a not negligible degree of complexity, even for people familiar with the field. I believe that this will require major government support. If we want to hope for an increase in democracy and self-government, that will necessarily require more resources than those currently allocated. If we also want there to be a certain degree of legitimacy in this type of operation, there will have to be resources and means, and forums will have to be created so that the populations that are the first ones to experience and to be required to provide their views on these instruments can intervene in the discussion, in the development of the choices that will be made, since they will have to live with the consequences of the decisions taken. In that sense, we hope that the government will make the necessary effort.

    Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you for your excellent presentations, and I can assure you that, in the clause-by-clause consideration, committee members will put questions to the Justice Department representatives who will be at the table. Thank you very much.

    The work of the committee is suspended until eight o'clock tomorrow morning. Thank you.