AANR Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Wednesday, February 12, 2003

¹

1535

Chief Bill Erasmus (National Chief, Dene Nation; Vice-Chief, Assembly of First Nations, Northwest Territories)

¹

1540

¹

1545

¹

1550

¹

1555

º

1600

The Chair

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

º

1605

Chief Bill Erasmus

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief Bill Erasmus

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief Bill Erasmus

º

1610

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief Bill Erasmus

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief Bill Erasmus

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief Bill Erasmus

The Chair

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

Chief Bill Erasmus

º

1615

Mr. Yvan Loubier

º

1620

Chief Bill Erasmus

The Chair

Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.)

Chief Bill Erasmus

Mr. Julian Reed

º

1625

Chief Bill Erasmus

Mr. Julian Reed

Chief Bill Erasmus

Mr. Julian Reed

Chief Bill Erasmus

Mr. Julian Reed

Chief Bill Erasmus

Mr. Julian Reed

Chief Bill Erasmus

Mr. Julian Reed

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

º

1630

Chief Bill Erasmus

The Chair

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

º

1635

Chief Bill Erasmus

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell

Chief Bill Erasmus

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell

Chief Bill Erasmus

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell

Chief Bill Erasmus

º

1640

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.)

Chief Bill Erasmus

Mr. Charles Hubbard

º

1645

Chief Bill Erasmus

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Chief Bill Erasmus

º

1650

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

º

1655

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

»

1700

Chief Bill Erasmus

The Chair

Chief Bill Erasmus

»

1705

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources

---

NUMBER 026

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Wednesday, February 12, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹  (1535)  

[English]

    Chief Bill Erasmus (National Chief, Dene Nation; Vice-Chief, Assembly of First Nations, Northwest Territories): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    For the record, I am Bill Erasmus, vice-chief, Assembly of First Nations for the Northwest Territories, and also national chief of the Dene Nation.

    Thank you for this opportunity. Originally we were scheduled to have me speak via video conference out of Yellowknife, but I was scheduled to be here for other meetings. I'm pleased we're able to do it face to face. I've met some of you before and it gives me pleasure to meet you again.

    I don't have a written submission to you, but I will send in some of my comments at a later time so you will have something on paper.

    First I would like to speak to the broader outlook as vice-chief of the Assembly of First Nations, speaking generally about the country, and then I want to focus specifically on the north, where I am from. I believe we do have an hour and a half. I will take up 20 to 25 minutes. Then if we can do the questions and answers, it may work. We may end early; it all depends on how our discussion goes.

    First of all, I think we have to be clear that, as first nations, many of us who are engaged in our communities have gone through a period of rapid change. Within political thought, a lot of ground has been covered in the last 30 to 40 years, compared to other peoples and other political situations.

    If we think back to 1969, when many of our organizations, such as the Dene Nation, were first organized, it was because the Indian Act was being looked at to be revised at that time. We had comments, for example, from the Prime Minister of the day, Prime Minister Trudeau, saying we did not have any special rights or privileges or powers, and if we did, they were extinguished by treaty or by legislation. The argument of the day was to assimilate our people into the mainstream in Canada.

    Since then, of course, a whole history of events has occurred in the country--most recently in the early 1980s. Canada now has the Constitution repatriated, and there have been a number of court cases and settlements throughout the country, and to some degree the exercising of rights.

    Now saying that, I think one of the difficulties--and I'll probably speak more of problem areas or difficulties that we foresee--is that over the years we've agreed that you can't have a cookie-cutter approach. You can't have one type of governance for all the first nations or one way for people to run their affairs in their communities.

    We went through that argument. We went through that exercise. We agreed that this was in fact true. So people like ourselves, the Dene, have been moving towards governing ourselves. We find a situation in the north where it is possible. It is a reality. We are a large part of the population, at least 50%.

¹  (1540)  

We have people active in the legislature. We have active negotiation tables where we are talking specifically of types of governments we will have in place in a number of years. It's a real thing.

    The difficulty with this kind of legislation is that it doesn't coincide with the reality on the ground. We're working quite closely with the territorial government. We are working quite closely to a large extent with the federal government. As I say, probably unlike anyone else in the country, we are talking of having a situation where we will govern ourselves.

    We are talking around the table, for example, about resource revenue sharing, independent financing, powers, including legislative authority, that our governments will have. With that, then, the question is, how does Bill C-7 assist us? How does it coincide with that? That's what we've had a chance to look at.

    I think the first thing is that we see this act as one really not of governance but of administration. It's not a recognition of the inherent authorities we have as a people, but it somehow attempts to gain control of how our communities operate and to make our band authorities, councils, more accountable.

    We find that this is not the answer. I think what we need is to go back to our earlier discussions. We need to recognize the special relationship we have. Many of our peoples have agreements in place, treaties that are of an international nature. They are between ourselves and the Crown at the time, most of them with England on behalf of Canada because Canada didn't have the authority to sign or to implement those treaties.

    In our instance, for example, our last treaty was Treaty 11, signed in 1921 with King George V. Those are long-term agreements we see as valid, operating within the context of Canada. The difficulty is, how do we interpret them and how do we implement them?

    Now the way the legislation is being formulated it doesn't recognize this underlying relationship we have. It doesn't recognize recent reports like the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, which talk about reconciliation, about planning together as governments, which reflect the reality that our rights are inherent--they do not come from Canada; they existed before, pre-Confederation. It doesn't constitute the nation-to-nation or government-to-government philosophy Canada has had in place for at least the last ten years.

    So it seems we're going backwards. Many of our people, as you've probably heard already, are saying we're tinkering with this archaic act, and it really isn't going to do us a lot of good.

    Reading through the legislation, I think in terms of trying to make it work, there don't appear to be new dollars coming forward. You can correct me if I'm wrong. Part of the difficulty is trying to understand the legislation and how it all works.

¹  (1545)  

    I think we have a situation right now where people are trying to cope with the realities we have. The recent census tells us about the housing conditions, the urban and rural distribution of our peoples, the difficulty of getting graduates, etc. People are having a difficult time just dealing with their daily lives.

    The imposition of this legislation, especially without people being part of the design and without working with Canada to make it something that makes sense to them, means we're going to get a lot of resistance. We're going to have to develop a way to look at this legislation and make it work.

    Many of our people have talked about the issue of whether meaningful consultation is actually taking place. The fact that the Minister of Indian Affairs went around many of our leaders and directly to our membership poses a threat to our communities. We are elected leaders. We are people who are mandated to deal with these issues. Yet Canada developed a website, a whole mechanism to bypass our leadership, and went directly to our membership. Canada is using that as proof of getting to the people and consulting them. We question that. There are legal precedents that have been set through court cases, and we don't believe consultation is being met through this process.

    We want to encourage your committee to come to our communities. If you look at where people are travelling, it seems you're going to rural areas. I don't believe you're going to any of the reservations or more isolated communities where people actually live. So we'd like you to consider that.

    In terms of how the legislation is devised, who it's supposed to be reaching, and how it might work, the recent Auditor General's report, which I believe was reported to your committee, talks about first nations accountability and transparency. Our understanding is that the problem is not so much financial management but rather the lack of capacity and resources in our communities to do the job right.

    Questioning the angle or the intent of the legislation is real. Our people feel that again the legislation is taking on the wrong thrust. It suggests that many of our leaders, especially chiefs and councillors, are corrupt. The most accurate reflection comes from the Auditor General, who talks about, as I said earlier, the fact that accountability is really not the issue. It's how to get dollars into our communities so that people can actually put into effect the kinds of resources they need.

¹  (1550)  

    The final question also talks about trying to envision how this works when you develop codes and all this accountability. Look at the first nations bureaucracy or the Department of Indian Affairs bureaucracy and the number of people who are working there versus how many actual first nations people there are. You'll see that you have a tremendous ratio, where there are many, many people working to satisfy the first nations question. By putting this legislation into effect--and I don't know if the department has done the analysis or any studies on this--you're going to have to bring in a whole lot more people to make sure the legislation is adhered to. You are developing this bureaucracy. It's getting even bigger, yet over the years we've been trying to make it smaller.

    We've been talking about this. There's a project in Manitoba that talks about dismantling the Department of Indian Affairs, and rather than have Canada impose something, have the first nations develop their own systems for monitoring, accountability, etc. I think you need to look at that question.

    I'll get closer to home and talk about the Dene. Originally, our people in the north assumed that the legislation would not really deal closely with the Dene because in most respects the Indian Act does not apply. We are not on reserves to a large extent, and we have developed negotiating tables where we are talking about governance, land claims settlements, etc. But in looking at the legislation, we find that the legislation really will have an effect on us.

    This is one question you need to look at. There is the assumption many times that our people are on reserves, but many of us are not, not only in the Northwest Territories but in other parts of Canada: some of the Innu, for example, in northern Quebec. That question needs to be raised.

    Again, going back to my earlier discussion about recognizing that first nations have the ability to exercise their own authorities, we've always talked about powers whose base comes from the land, powers that flow from our participation in life on the land, our connection to our lands, etc. It seems that this legislation is more concerned with community codes and community law-making as opposed to land-based powers, where people would really have legitimate ways of making their daily lives better, of improving their daily lives.

    One of the questions we noticed is this. If we look at clause 11, we find that with the way it's designed, it provides that virtually every decision the chief and council make can be questioned; it can be appealed, and an agreement a person may have because of a decision that was made can eventually be reversed.

¹  (1555)  

    We find that this may not be the best way to approach it. What you're doing is you're allowing for minute scrutiny of band decision-makers. As in every society, there are people who generally oppose the existing leadership, and this provides a mechanism for harassment or interference in band business by dissidents. These people exist everywhere, not only in our society but at every level of government, including municipal and provincial governments. There may be some good intentions there, but we find that if decision-makers are going to in fact make decisions that make the communities function, then their ability to lead and to govern has to be left in place.

    Another area that concerns us specifically is clause 5, which talks about band custom elections. All our first nations, the 30 communities in the north, follow band custom. The provisions here are asking for changes to that, so we will be affected, and that brings some concern to us.

    Another area that brings concern and that especially needs clarity is clauses 11 and 12--and I spoke a little bit to this earlier--and whether or not the First Nations Governance Act is to include all first nations regardless of whether they are on reserve or off reserve. Clause 11, for example, provides for complaints and redress “by a member of the band or a resident of the reserve”. Clause 12 provides that:

The council of a band shall make available to members of the band and residents of its reserve all administrative rules, policies and directives of the band relating to band government operations, including programs and services offered to members and residents.

    It implies that everyone who is on the band list can participate in the band's business, which may not be a bad situation, but again, Indian Affairs traditionally only deals with people who are resident in the community or on the reserve. If we're going to change that, then financial assistance to the band is also required. We're finding this problem already.

    For example, because of the Corbiere case a number of years ago, it is specified that all band members are eligible to vote. It compels the first nation to find all their band members regardless of where they reside in the country, track down the band members, and provide them with the opportunity to vote. But it doesn't provide for the necessary additional cost this takes the first nation for their election. If you look at that and see what has occurred there, you'll find the same in this instance.

    Again, I'm not saying it's a bad thing. I think chiefs want to be responsible to all their members regardless of where they reside. Members living in rural areas are there for a reason. They may not be able to find jobs on the reserve, so they leave. They may go for training, for post-secondary education, and they may leave for a whole number of reasons, but they are still members of that first nation.

º  (1600)  

    If something occurs in their daily lives, for example, in our instance, someone leaves to go to Edmonton for post-secondary education and they're members of the Yellowknife Dene, if something happens, they don't go to the mayor of Edmonton; they go to the chief and try to deal with their problem that way. If the chief doesn't have the resources to deal with people outside of their community, then we have a huge problem.

    As I say, the Department of Indian Affairs historically has not recognized people once they leave the community or their reserve.

    Other sections need clarity, specifically clause 17, which talks of the validity of conflicting laws, meaning Canada's laws versus first nation laws and which laws will apply. I think you have to be clear. It makes mention of the ability to make laws for the preservation of culture and language, and it's not clear which laws may apply. So I'd ask you to look at that.

    Those are some of the points I want to make. In summary, I think there is a huge concern that Canada is moving this legislation forward in isolation of our first nations. What needs to happen is that we meet on a nation-to-nation and government-to-government level--which has been the policy of the government over the last number of years--and work together on this to make it work. Otherwise you're going to have resistance, probably court cases, and it's not going to help our situation in our community.

    I've tried to give you an idea of what is happening out there and how it affects us, and I am prepared to answer any of your questions.

    Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Chief. I know you have been working for the good of your people for a long time, and it's remarkable that you're able to make a 27-minute presentation without notes and be so accurate and informative. We appreciate your assistance.

    Mr. Vellacott, for nine minutes.

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

    Mr. Erasmus, could you give us a bit of a capsule version of the response of first nations communities in the Northwest Territories? How are they responding to the legislation? Are they thinking it has some possibilities, that they can constructively work with it? Are they dead set against it, or kind of ambivalent, up in the air, about it?

    Could I get just a very quick answer? I have more questions.

º  (1605)  

    Chief Bill Erasmus: As I was alluding to, I think in the first instance we thought that the legislation wouldn't affect us. We're very active in the north, where we're trying to settle the outstanding land questions and so on, and people are basically working toward that. As we study this, we find that it will affect us. It's causing concern because it may affect our negotiations. We don't know.

    Within the agreement it talks of a two-year period for setting up the code and so on. Also, in the event that you have a self-government agreement, there is the opting in and out. But the reality is, if you look at the history of negotiations between first nations and Canada, you'll see that it's horrendous. Very few agreements come into effect for a whole number of reasons. But a two-year period is very short in terms of how long it takes to arrive at agreements. So there are a lot of questions about this.

    Generally, as I said earlier, people are not happy because this was not done in unison with Canada.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: So there is apprehension.

    You made a comment, and I'm just trying to get a sense of that too. I think I was tracking with you a little bit. I might even have some agreement, but I also have a little bit of wonderment. You made the point that you thought this bill would bring minute scrutiny of chief and council by band members and that it could be used to harass them. What do you mean by that? Isn't it a good thing for democracy to have minute scrutiny? I've always thought that for the most part that's a pretty good thing. Maybe there's something unique and different about some of our first nations communities where, being smaller communities, it's more a tool in the opposite direction. I've always thought that some minute scrutiny is not a bad idea in provincial and federal areas. We're always looking at ways to keep it transparent so that people can check it out and scrutinize it. Are you saying you don't want the minute scrutiny?

    Chief Bill Erasmus: What I'm saying is that it doesn't provide for the ability of chief and council to function as a government in a constructive way, because virtually every decision they make can be appealed by any member who may disagree with the decision. What that does, then, is prevent the community from progressing. Look at a mayor and council. If people within a community could question virtually every decision they make and launch an appeal, the council wouldn't be able to function.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Maybe there's something I'm missing in the bill itself then. I would think that taking a second look at something and maybe overturning a decision would have to be based on adequate numbers in the community. It wouldn't be just one or two individuals. Is your impression of this legislation that just one or two people could upset the whole process and turn it back in the other direction?

    Chief Bill Erasmus: My reading of clause 11 is that it means individual band members. So I would want you to look at that.

    Normally what happens in our communities is that there are regular chief and council meetings where decisions are made. There are also general band meetings, where the general population can get together and deal with issues and try to arrive at consensus. There is a mechanism that people use to make decisions, and it works. I believe this works against that and encourages a different way of working. So I question it.

    I'm not saying we're against scrutiny. Scrutiny is okay. But once a decision is made and the community is happy with it, then we need to move on. You don't want to have people appealing decisions that the general public has already agreed to.

º  (1610)  

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: You don't think community members would ostracize or shame that person, if they're just being silly and ridiculous and in that harassment mode? Might you not have community members just simply--

    Chief Bill Erasmus: Community members may ostracize, but the fact is that the law says they can do it. It allows it to occur.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Yes. They might be standing alone, but they would proceed in the gears, I guess, and possibly turn it back in some cases.

    The other quick thing is this. You talked about a land-based approach as opposed to this approach here. How different would that look? Does this exclude land-based...? Is it mutually exclusive, the approach we have here in this bill?

    Chief Bill Erasmus: Part of what I think Nancy clarified is that whether we're talking about all first nations is a question that people need to understand. Are we talking about every first nation across the country? Are we talking just about people on reserve? Are we talking about people in urban areas, and so on?

    What I meant by land-based is that we believe our authorities come from the land. It's our relationship with the land. That's the inherent uniqueness we have. So when we govern, it's not just the piece of land we live on, but also the land we use to harvest and the land we've always occupied. It goes beyond the reserve.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I see. Do you think this bill takes away from that?

    Chief Bill Erasmus: I don't think it helps it.

    The fact that there's no non-derogation clause, which I didn't mention, really brings us concern. I know some of the aboriginal senators have been bringing up this question. I believe there's a move now to get rid of the early non-derogation clauses that have come into effect since 1982.

    It's a huge concern. I think it needs to be explained to us. We need to understand the full capacity of that.

[Translation]

    The Chair: Thank you. Mr. Loubier, you have seven minutes.

    Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Chief Erasmus, thank you for your excellent presentation. I am very happy to meet you.

    I would like to ask you first about the governance system applied by the Dene communities that you lead. Could you give us a few examples of those systems, how you select your leaders and tell us how Bill C-7 could cripple your systems of governance or the systems you use to choose your leaders.

[English]

    Chief Bill Erasmus: Thank you.

    I need to give you a little bit of history.

    Prior to contact, until very recently, our people lived on the land as hunters and gatherers in small family groupings of approximately 30 to 40 people. Within that system, the social organization was such that everyone in the society had a place and a role to play. Obvious leaders were within that system, and people followed the natural leaders we had. The best person at hunting caribou, for example, was the one who led when it was time to hunt caribou. The best fisherman also took the lead. Generally, it was more hereditary; the leader would choose the next person to lead.

    That system changed to some degree when treaty was made with the Crown in 1899, and also in 1921. At that time we were asked to pick one person as chief and people to work with the chief as councillors. It changed in that one person was regarded as the leader. The way we chose to do that, over time, was by custom, normally by the raising of hands or by consensus amongst the elders. Sometimes each community devised a way to choose their leadership.

    That still occurs, but it's gone more now to one man, one vote, and secret ballot. But it still follows in the end that when people are chosen, they're chosen for particular skills and leadership abilities they have.

    We're not certain how this legislation will affect that. But it asks us to develop codes, which many of us don't have. The question is, what happens if we don't design a code? A code is not easy to design. When you have an oral society that has to write down their activities, it isn't easy. You may, for example, eliminate some of the flexibility you have in a society that works on consensus or a society that's oral. It takes a certain mind to understand how people work.

    I can't just ask you or one of your assistants, for example, to come into my community and write a code. First, they don't understand my community. Where would they start?

    We're being told that we need to do this within two years and that it has to reflect our communities. It's a huge task. It may sound easy, but it's not as easy as it might sound.

    You ask me how it affects us. First of all, just trying to put on paper how people function is difficult. Trying to make that work so it reflects and coincides with this legislation is another thing, especially when people are not in support of the Indian Act in general and specifically the new provisions that are coming forward.

    So we have a problem.

º  (1615)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Yvan Loubier: A while ago[Editor's Note : Technical difficulty] ...the negotiations going on with the territorial government and the federal government...[Editor's Note : Technical difficulty] ...through the implementation of this bill. Is that due to a lack of ressources or to the fact that some clauses of the bill interfere with the process of negotiation and with the direction you have taken with the territorial and the federal governments? Could you have to backtrack a bit? In this context, how do you see this issue and the effect of Bill C-7?

º  (1620)  

[English]

    Chief Bill Erasmus: The Indian Act is very interesting, because it's supposed to apply to all first nations peoples, or as it defines Indian people. The difficulty, though, is that most of the provisions within the Indian Act talk about people living on reservations. As I said earlier, most of our people are not on reserve, so in most instances the Indian Act doesn't apply.

    If you asked me what was in the Indian Act, it's very difficult for me to describe it. I don't have to know it, because as I say, it doesn't apply to me a lot.

    But that's not good either, because the act was never designed by our people. The act was put into place without our involvement. So we've designed a way to make our communities work.

    The territorial government came north in 1967 and they established municipal governments in our communities, which directly opposed our chiefs in council. However, our chiefs in council have survived, and they'll continue to function. In many of our communities the chief and the mayor are the same person, and they combine their resources. So the chief is the mayor and also the chief, and they care for the community.

    In the eastern Arctic it's a little bit different. In Nunavut, there also, in most communities, the Inuit people are the mayors of their communities.

    The point I'm making is, in the north it's different from the south. We've developed our own system. We've managed to work quite well within it.

    We're at the table negotiating, and I don't know how this legislation is going to affect us. We're hoping it doesn't slow down our negotiations. We're hoping it doesn't affect us in a negative way. I'm asking if you can look at that and study that question, because I don't have the resources to do it and we're dealing with new ground.

[Translation]

    The Chair: Thank you very much. We have allowed nine minutes because this information is very interesting and very important.

[English]

    Mr. Reed, you can take up to nine minutes too.

    Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll probably be more brief than that.

    Chief, I'm on a steep learning curve here, being new to this committee, so some of the questions I ask may be very simple.

    You explained how the Indians in the west worked in families or small communities of about 40 or 50 people. In the community I come from, historically there was a city that is now known in Halton as Crawford Lake, a community of 15,000. Apparently it was the largest first nation community in North America, according to the history that's handed down. They located there because they were traders on the Niagara escarpment, and there was material passed back and forth, a lot of active trade. I'm wondering how the governance would have taken place in that large community. Do you have any recollection?

    Chief Bill Erasmus: Can you tell me where Crawford Lake is?

    Mr. Julian Reed: Yes. It's located in what is now the municipality of Milton, Ontario, on the Niagara escarpment.

º  (1625)  

    Chief Bill Erasmus: Were they farming people, do you know?

    Mr. Julian Reed: I don't know. I expect that some of them were, because there is evidence that agriculture was prominent in other parts of Halton. So I don't really know. The one thing we do know about the history is that they were traders.

    Chief Bill Erasmus: I really don't know that area that well. The fact is, we come from very different societies.

    We are hunter-gatherers up north. My wife, for example, comes from the east coast; she comes from fishing peoples. Some of our people are traditionally farmers. We vary.

    That was one of the points I was trying to make, that if you're going to design legislation for our peoples--we're approximately a million people, in 630-odd communities, from very different backgrounds--legislation can't just be provided to answer all of our needs. We need wide consultation, we need to have extensive discussion, and that needs to happen amongst ourselves and cabinet, for example, at that level, to make it work.

    A big problem we have is the original treaties, as I talked about earlier. Canada right now, the Minister of Indian Affairs, has no mandate to deal with the treaties, so we're looking at ways to ensure that they are within the priorities of Canada. The federal budget will come up soon, and in there, there should be a discussion on the treaties and how to implement them.

    This is complex, and the only thing I can say for your area is meet with the local people.

    Mr. Julian Reed: We don't have any. There are no more left in Halton.

    Chief Bill Erasmus: Well, meet with the people closest to you. There are people in the Toronto area.

    Mr. Julian Reed: Yes.

    Chief Bill Erasmus: Talk with them and ask them so that you can find out.

    If you look historically at our people, we have our own concept of democracy, as you're probably aware. The American Constitution was based a lot on the Iroquois Confederacy, which is a certain form of democracy. Decision-making and governance is not new to us, very complicated societies. That's why many of our people, especially our elders, are threatened when we tell them that the Indian Act, this archaic piece of legislation that has guided us over the years, is being amended and we're not really a big part of that amending formula.

    Mr. Julian Reed: I hear in your presentation, though, some optimism that this bill might be tailored or amended. Did I hear you correctly? Or is it, in your opinion, a lost cause?

    Chief Bill Erasmus: Well, I don't think anything is a lost cause. If there's a will to do things right, then it can be done.

    The question is whether, within your system, which I've never been a part of actively, you can, through the committees and the hearings, and so on, come up with amendments that might make sense, and also through the Senate system, because we will also be working with the senators, and we don't want something in the end that's going to devastate our communities.

    So I am optimistic, and I'm trying to find a way to make it work.

    Mr. Julian Reed: Thank you.

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chair: Thank you.

[Translation]

    Mr. Loubier, you have five minutes.

    Mr. Yvan Loubier: Chief Erasmus, I would like to ask you something. You are also a member of the executive of the Assembly of First Nations. The members of that Assembly we have heard so far were not only opposed to some aspects of this bill, the lack of financing for its implementation among other things, but they were dead set against the bill itself.

    According to them, this bill is beyond salvation, it should be put in the garbage and rewritten anew because it does not reflect the approach chosen in numerous reports from joint commissions nor even that of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples

    You seem to be a bit more open. To go back to Mr. Reed's words, I would like to know if you speak as the Chief of the Dene Nation or as a member of the Assembly of First Nations. How do you explain your relative openness to what has been said about Bill C-7?

º  (1630)  

[English]

    Chief Bill Erasmus: I am a member of the Assembly of First Nations, and I can't speak in any other capacity.

    The legislation puts our people in a real predicament, because on the one hand we're trying to improve our communities and on the other hand the reality is that someone else makes decisions for us. Someone else guides our lives, and the Indian Act plays a big part in that. What I mean by that is, laws of general application are in effect, but we're not the ones who make the laws. Imagine this. If someone else was making laws for you and you were not a big player in that, it would be very difficult for you to function. That's what's happening.

    Most of our people feel that we're not contributing in a positive way to Canadian society. We're almost a drain on the population; it's almost as if we're from another world, that we're American, because we're really not a part of Canada. We're not a functioning, positive part of the country. By developing our own governments, we're trying to do that.

    Now, this legislation--and other people have said it--perpetuates the status quo; it doesn't improve on it. It puts more barriers around us, it's paternalistic, and it continues to have someone else make decisions for us. It entrenches the Minister of Indian Affairs as the authority with discretionary powers over our people. That's why people say it should be done away with.

    I appeal to you because you're in a position to change that. I've come here with some optimism, asking that you look at these clauses and that you bring that advice forward. I think you have an obligation because you have the ability to do that, so that's why I say this.

    I'm not disagreeing with other people. I can tell you to chuck it out, but I know you won't; common sense tells me that. I'm trying to understand it, and I'm trying to find a way to make things come together. At the end of the day, unless the legislation is not passed, for whatever reason, it's going to be real and we'll have to live with it. I've been at this for a long time, and I realize that rejecting it but not talking and not appearing before you will not do me any good.

    I don't know if that answers your question.

    The Chair: Merci, Monsieur Loubier.

    Ms. Karetak-Lindell, you have five minutes.

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

    It's very nice to see you. Welcome to Ottawa.

    Just from the witnesses I've seen since we've been talking about the legislation, I see a pattern, and this is probably more a comment than anything else. We heard from the Yukon people and we heard from the NWT. Coming from my part of the north, I don't know if it's because we've been left alone a little longer that we seem to have a different sort of approach, that is, trying to work with what's given to us to work with, as limited as it is. I've seen a bit of a change in some of the approaches coming from the witnesses north of 60.

    I hear where you're coming from, and I got that from some of the witnesses from the Yukon too--not all of them, but the ones who have signed their umbrella framework agreement. I'm wondering if that's something you would like to see within this--for example, if there could be more of a base or foundation that would still allow for some flexibility for individual bands to work within a certain framework with guided principles. I know those are in this legislation, but some feel they're just a bit too restrictive as to what option you might have for adapting it to your needs.

    Also, just for clarification, how many bands are there in the Northwest Territories? I should know this but I don't. How many people are you talking about, and how many of them are already under self-government agreements? I know there are still some at the tables, and I'm not sure if anything has been signed in the Yellowknife area since the Inuvialuit settlement.

º  (1635)  

    Chief Bill Erasmus: There are 30 first nations in the Northwest Territories, and we're broken into five different language groups. We constitute about 25,000 members.

    I'm trying to remember your questions.

    Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: How many have already signed self-government agreements?

    Chief Bill Erasmus: We're at the negotiating table as those five bodies. Out of five, two have completed their land negotiations. One is very close and the other two will take a number of years. But all of those tables are at self-government talks, because the land agreements didn't include self-government, except the Dogrib agreement, which should be finished within the next year. So eight out of thirty communities have settled, and the remaining are still at tables. But people are at varying degrees of negotiation.

    Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: My other question had to do with whether you would rather see a framework that you could work through, one that was flexible. We heard that from some Yukon witnesses.

    Chief Bill Erasmus: Could you talk about that a little more so that I can understand you?

    Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: They said their umbrella agreement for the Yukon gave them a basis to go from. It wasn't so restrictive in details. It gave different groups an opportunity to come to an agreement as long as they adhered to certain principles. Yet it still gave them the individuality to work out their different agreements, but within the larger umbrella framework.

    Chief Bill Erasmus: What we were able to do in the north is talk about treaty rights, treaty powers, and authorities. We are also a bit different from the Yukon because they never entered into the treaties the way we did. They have the modern treaty. Our agreements are a bit different in that we have what they call historic treaties, and we also have the modern-day interpretation of the treaties. Our people see them as treaty agreements plus whatever they're able to negotiate. In order to get into that, there are guiding principles, there is a mechanism people follow, and there are frameworks. That's what I was getting at earlier.

    We've designed that over the course of a number of years and it seems to work for us. We're not sure if this legislation takes away from that. We're not sure how this legislation will affect us, so flexibility is needed. On the other hand, people in the south do not have these opportunities, except for the Nisga'a, who are south of 60. They are the only people, the people in B.C., who are at the negotiating table. But again, those people don't have treaties the way we do, so it is quite different in the south.

    If you go to Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, or Quebec, people have the same problems and the same concerns, but they don't have a table to bring their concerns to, and that's where their frustration comes from. As I said earlier, Canada says they don't have a mandate to deal with the treaties, so there's no discussion going on between first nations and Canada. It's getting worse, and it's really quite scary because we're not sure where it's going to lead. You add this legislation to it, where people don't see it improving, and there's a lot of frustration, so people are saying get rid of it.

    This is what the bill is supposed to do; it's supposed to help first nations govern. Can we develop a mechanism to say, what is governance? First of all, let's agree on government. Let's agree on a framework for how we're going to apply that.

    Legislation might not be a bad idea. We'd love to come here and work with you, and many of us want nothing more than that. I have been making presentations to the standing committee for the last 20 years, and never have I been able to come here and say that we've worked it out with you, that we've worked together in the back rooms, and that we've brought our authorities together--section 35, 91, and 92 powers--and made this country a stronger place. I've never been able to do that, but that's what I want to do.

    That's what we're trying to do in the north. We're not a province, but we're looking at bringing provincial-like powers to the north, federal section 35 powers, and making the north that kind of reality.

    That's what our people want. It's non-threatening, it recognizes all of us, and it can contribute in a positive way. That's why I try to bring something positive, because we're engaged in those kinds of discussions at home.

º  (1640)  

    The Chair: Mr. Hubbard.

    Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Chief. It's certainly a very worthwhile afternoon.

    You mentioned 30 communities; that's 30 in the territory, but there are other Dene groups, I understand. Do you have connections with them too?

    Chief Bill Erasmus: Well, in the books we're called Athapaskans, and we're a huge body in Alaska, Yukon, and northern B.C. right across to Manitoba. Then in the lower 48 states you have the Navajo and Apache, and there are other tribes there. So we're a huge family and we're connected in different ways with all those different peoples. But specifically, when we say the Dene Nation, it refers to the people in the Northwest Territories. But we do have one community in northern Manitoba that is officially a member of the Dene Nation, and that's Tadoule Lake near Churchill.

    Mr. Charles Hubbard: Mr. Chair, the chief has brought to our attention several points here, which I think are probably worth looking at in terms of amendments to the present bill.

    I wonder, Chief, in terms of what's good and what's bad with the bill.... We're going back to the Indian Act. It is a long way in history, back even beyond what wasn't even part of so-called Canada at that time, which we know today in terms of Confederation. In looking at the bill and comparing it to the act of the 1870s, would you be more comfortable to leave everything as it is, or to work to try to amend the bill and to try to make it more acceptable to the various first nations across the country?

    What would be your recommendation to the committee in terms of your impression of Bill C-7, as opposed to trying to continue under the old act?

º  (1645)  

    Chief Bill Erasmus: Over the years people have looked at this question. It always comes back to the same answer, which is that we need to take a serious look together at where we're going and decide how to approach it together. One side can't impose on the other. So we need this kind of a discussion.

    As I said earlier, the reality is that the Indian Act is not understood by everyone as to what it actually is, because you have the act. You have the act versus policy, you have other legislation that counters the act in some instances, and you have court cases that imply otherwise. It's very complicated.

    So I think we need to sit down and discuss where it's all going to go. Then you can determine how to deal with the act, because some people don't want the act and some people do. The ones who don't want it then should have that opportunity. And for the others who may want it, it may in my view work for them in another version. So people need the opportunity to have this discussion.

    Mr. Charles Hubbard: One concern I have, Mr. Chair, is that the chief has said that his concern is that instead of reducing this so-called white man's administration of the first nations peoples, he sees this bill as creating a bigger bureaucracy, which would not be in the best interests of either your people or Canada as a whole. This is of concern to me, because I think the minister's intent, and hopefully the intent of our government, as some of your people have said, is that we hope the day will come when the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs will cease to exist, and we won't be dealing with such a big bureaucracy, trying to have, as one witness said, the nearly 160 reports a year his band is putting in to Ottawa.

    So it is a concern, and probably to you as well, given your 20 years of experience before committees. This really concerns me.

    Chief Bill Erasmus: It's a concern of mine, and as I began to look at the legislation, I started to think of it. If you're looking at what is being asked, to design the code, to develop all the requirements within the legislation, it's a lot of work.

    Let's just say we did it. We can look at a whole number of scenarios, but let's just say all of the first nations worked with the bill, we all developed codes, we all developed accountability practices, and so on. At the end of the day someone has to go through all that; otherwise we did it for nought. So you have to hire additional people. We're already spending too much, right? So I don't know how it's going to work.

    Now, look at the other scenario. Let's say 20% of us work with the act and 80% don't. Again, how are you going to work with it?

    Let's just say someone refuses to design a code, doesn't adhere to the financial practices, the things within the bill. How are we supposed to make the first nation come on side? How many people do we have to get through that exercise? We have to look at that seriously, because that's what we're talking about. Most of the people across the country are not happy with it. So it's a serious a question.

    On my own, I want to look at that more closely, because we just don't have those kinds of dollars to play around with. Sure, Canada has a surplus, but I don't think this is going to help at all.

º  (1650)  

[Translation]

    The Chair: Mr. Loubier, you have four minutes.

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

    Unlike Mr. Hubbard—Mr. Erasmus will probably share this point of view too—I think that far from diminishing the presence of the Department of Indian Affairs and its bureaucracy, Bills C-7 and C-6, for special land claims, will in fact allow the department to keep his own and even to expand.

    If we go by the little calculation I did the other day about the speed at which special land claims were dealt with during the last 30 years, it will take 141 years to settle the outstanding claims, not counting any new land claims or claims about the inherent right to self-government.

    Bill C-7 has been so widely contested so far—and Mr. Erasmus, speaking for the Dene First Nations, just added his voice to that movement—that it is quite obvious that aboriginal Nations will go before the courts on that.

    It is completely unrealistic to think and say that this will reduce frictions and the size of bureaucracy, that we will grant full self-government to aboriginal nations and that we won't hear anymore about them after that. This is not what we can see.

    I invite you to read again, as I recently did, the Dussault-Erasmus report; it showed very clearly the way to avoid the kind of situation we are in today. You will observe the incredible difference there is between the recommendations of this report—and it is a royal commission—and Bills C-7 and C-6 and others. There is here an unbelievable mix of the pieces of that puzzle.

    I think we are trying to emulate the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The fish is gone but there are 30 times more civil servants today than 30 years ago. This is no joke.

    That seems to me what we are in fact doing. I think they have reasons to be concerned because to apply Bill C-6 and to get into the mould of Bill C-7, we will need ressources. It will also delay territorial negotiations and those about treaty rights.

    It seems to me the committee should be thinking about those things. I don't know if you share my fears, Chief Erasmus, but as far as I am concerned, what I understand about this bill makes me fear the worst.

    You may, if you wish, say what you think of what I just said. I did not have any particular question to ask you, I am sorry.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Loubier. What you said give me the opportunity to make a comment I wanted to make a long time ago.

[English]

    I see a parallel, because as a committee you members know the workload we had before Christmas. We did four bills, we're doing one now, there's another one coming, and I'm sure there will be others.

    It seems that every one of those bills puts an institution in place or allows for the creation of an institution. I'm a franco-Ontarian. A francophone living outside Quebec is a minority, and we still exist in northern Ontario because our ancestors put institutions in place. For example, in my riding there are eight Caisses populaires Desjardins. When I tell this to my friends from Quebec they're surprised. Our ancestors worked very hard to establish our control of our French schools, the churches, the university, and the teachers college.

    I see this as an honourable attempt to assist first nations to put in place institutions, because without institutions you cannot grow or establish yourself. Sudbury is the largest bilingual city in Canada outside Quebec. The largest is Montreal, the second-largest is Ottawa-Hull, and the largest outside Quebec is Sudbury.

    I reflect on this a lot because for generations in my family we've been involved in trying to assert ourselves, and it's the establishment of institutions that has done it. I see this Bill C-7 as an effort to assist communities to establish institutions. If it's an institution of local law-making, it is an institution that the members will request more from. Because everybody gets pressured, they make living better.

    Maybe I'm going too far in what I'm going to say now, but I've been saying it privately so I'll say it publicly. Bill C-7 is a bill that everybody agrees should be.... The Indian Act should have been abolished; it should be abolished and it's everybody's wish to abolish it. We're not prepared as a government and as a country to immediately just scrap it. Here's the comment I make privately: I see Bill C-7 as a broken car and we're going to fix it. We're going to patch it up to bring it to the service station, to the garage, so we can scrap it.

    Ideally, many witnesses are saying they want to negotiate government to government. I want to see that too. This is not government; this is a committee of the House of Commons. I see the negotiations in self-governance as valuable government-to-government negotiations. I wish they went better.

    In a sense I'm pleased we're not doing Bill C-7 government to government. I'm pleased we are involved in it because I would see it as demeaning for the Government of Canada, as an initial step of negotiating government to government, to do it in a broken-down car piece of legislation. I would see that as embarrassing for the first nations.

    I see a lot of hope for Bill C-7. This committee represents five political parties and the members are working seriously. They're doing good work. I commend them all. All I am is a timekeeper, as you've noticed; I hold members to the second. But the real work is done by the members, and I believe we're going to improve this bill. It will still be flawed, but it will be able to run until we get it to the service station so we can scrap it. I hope that's what happens.

[Translation]

    Do you wish to make any comments on that?

º  (1655)  

    Mr. Yvan Loubier: This was a wonderful speech, Mr. Chair. I really appreciated what you said. But I would note that the french-canadian institutions you mentionned—the Mouvement Desjardins, for example—reflect our customs and our civil rights. That is where this bill is sorely lacking.

    We were able to build on our institutions which is not the case for the aboriginal nations; they cannot build on their customary law and their inherent right. It may be the only flaw of this bill but it is a basic one. Still, I really liked what you said. It was great.

    The Chair: Let us hope we will choose a framework flexible enough so they can keep their customs.

[English]

    Having said that, I've imposed on the committee and on your good nature. I don't usually take much committee time; it's just something I felt should have been said.

    I invite you now to make closing remarks.

»  (1700)  

    Chief Bill Erasmus: Thank you.

    I'd like to ask you a question, if I can, before I make my closing remarks. I find your comments very interesting and encouraging. I'm not quite sure if I fully understand what you're saying; maybe I'll ask a question for clarity.

    Are you saying--and I don't want to make a big thing about this--that the Indian Act is most likely not the best way to govern or guide first nations and that it should be abolished?

    At present there are a number of bills before us that try to improve the lives of first nations. They might not be the best, but as committees and so on you want to improve them. Eventually we will get to the government-to-government negotiations and improve on our situation.

    Is that what you're saying?

    The Chair: I see this as the government putting in place the possibility for first nations to establish institutions in their way. And who knows, you may come up with a lot better institutions than what we have everywhere else in Canada.

    Without the legislation that has been passed in recent months and will be passed in future months, I see it as very difficult to build financial institutions. For education, I'm sure you'll have a different way to do it from the way I did it when I was chairman of a school board. But you need the tools to get started, and government needs to realize that money is part of these tools. It's not enough to come as witnesses and say, “Give us the money, we'll fix it all”--and you didn't do that.

    The government has to realize it will take money. But to have all the money in the world and not change the playing rules, not have any institutions, nothing to wrap our time around....

    When you're a minority group--and I'm familiar with this--when you build an institution, no matter what it is, that institution attracts the leaders of your community. That's when you start having volunteers working in the caisses populaires, the credit union, as we know it. That's where you see leaders who had no occasion to demonstrate that they were leaders demonstrate that they are. I believe that's how you build better communities.

    I will make it clear that those are my personal opinions, and I'll try not to do this too often to you, my colleagues.

    Now to your closing remarks.

    Chief Bill Erasmus: Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your comments, and I thank the members for their questions and comments. I feel you're making an honest effort to make this work and to understand what it is we're dealing with.

    On the comment of providing the opportunity for our people to develop institutions that can truly work to their betterment, I think we need to have that opportunity developed here so that people have options, so that they have the ability to develop those institutions to their liking, and so that if legislation is designed, it's not the cookie-cutter approach. We're not all the same, and it allows for people to flourish. That's the challenge you have.

    The only thing I want to add is that I ask that you have your people look at as many of the possibilities as possible. I mentioned some of the financial questions, the logistics of ensuring that it doesn't slow down negotiations, which are slow as it is.

    I've generally been talking about comprehensive claims, not specific ones. There are over 600 claims sitting basically idle, with the backlog, and I'm sure you'll hear about that when specific claims come before you. I'll be speaking to those, because I chair the AFN committee that deals with them. It will take us many years to move forward, especially if this legislation restricts and confines, if the focus is narrow.

    I encourage you to be open and hear what people have to say, and I'm sure you'll hear where people are at with it.

    Maybe I should end with a quote that the Minister of Indian Affairs delivered when he brought this forward in first reading. Minister Nault made the comments on June 14. If this is truly to occur, I think we need to see it in a particular light. He said:

We have an opportunity to shape legislation which would provide First Nations more modern community law-making and enforcement provisions and would enable First Nations to design their own community codes on leadership selection, financial management and accountability and administration of government.

Governance is about people; it’s about putting the power in the hands of people to ensure that their governments work better for them.

    If this legislation can be brought within that scope, then it's not a bad idea. That's the challenge we have.

    Thank you. Merci beaucoup.

»  (1705)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    You appeared before this committee when I chaired in 1996-97 and you were very helpful then. You were very helpful today. It was a pleasure working with you.

    Thank you.

    The committee is adjourned.