AANR Committee Meeting

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

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

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

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, February 20, 2003

0810

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

Mrs. Mary Dalen ( As Individual)

0815

The Chair

Mrs. Mary Dalen

0820

The Chair

Mrs. Mary Dalen

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Wesley (Co-chair, Northwest Tribal Treaty Nations)

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Wesley

0825

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Wesley

0830

0835

0840

0845

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Wesley

0850

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Wesley

The Chair

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

0855

Mr. Gerald Wesley

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Gerald Wesley

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

0900

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Gerald Wesley

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Gerald Wesley

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Gerald Wesley

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Gerald Wesley

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Gerald Wesley

The Chair

0905

Mr. Gérard Binet (Frontenac—Mégantic, Lib.)

Mr. Gerald Wesley

Mr. Gérard Binet

Mr. Gerald Wesley

0910

The Chair

Mr. Gérard Binet

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Wesley

The Chair

Mr. Robert Hill (President, Tsimshian Tribal Council)

0915

0920

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

0925

Mr. Robert Hill

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Robert Hill

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Robert Hill

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Robert Hill

The Chair

Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. David Chatters

Mr. Robert Hill

0930

Mr. David Chatters

Mr. Robert Hill

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Robert Hill

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Robert Hill

0935

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Robert Hill

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Robert Hill

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.)

0940

The Chair

Mr. Gérard Binet

The Chair

Mr. Robert Hill

0945

The Chair

Mr. Robert Hill

The Chair

Mr. Robert Hill

The Chair

Ms. Roberta Van Doorn (As Individual)

0950

The Chair

Ms. Roberta Van Doorn

The Chair

Ms. Roberta Van Doorn

The Chair

Ms. Theresa Wesley (As Individual)

0955

The Chair

Mr. Clarence Nyce (Chief Executive Officer, Skeena Native Development Society)

1000

Mr. Graham Allen (As Individual)

The Chair

Mr. Graham Allen

The Chair

Mr. Graham Allen

1005

1010

1015

The Chair

Mr. Graham Allen

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Graham Allen

1020

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Graham Allen

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Graham Allen

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Graham Allen

Mr. Clarence Nyce

Mr. Graham Allen

Mr. Clarence Nyce

Mr. Graham Allen

The Chair

Mr. Gérard Binet

1025

Mr. Clarence Nyce

Mr. Gérard Binet

Le président

Mr. Clarence Nyce

The Chair

Mr. Clarence Nyce

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mrs. Mary Dalen

The Chair

1030

Mrs. Mary Dalen

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mrs. Mary Dalen

The Chair

Mrs. Mary Dalen

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

1035

Mrs. Mary Dalen

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mrs. Mary Dalen

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mrs. Mary Dalen

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mrs. Mary Dalen

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Mrs. Mary Dalen

Mr. Pat Martin

Mrs. Mary Dalen

Mr. Pat Martin

Mrs. Mary Dalen

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources

NUMBER 033

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Thursday, February 20, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¾ (0810)

[English]

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

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

We are pleased to welcome this morning, as an individual, Mary Dalen. Good morning, Mary Dalen. We have 10 minutes together. We ask you to make a presentation, and if you allow time, there will be questions from members. But if you wish to use the full 10 minutes for your presentation, you're welcome to it.

As an early warning to everyone in the room, we do stick to the time. You may feel bad when I have to cut you off, but I pride myself in saying that I cut the minister off twice, and everybody else gets the same treatment.

Please start.

Mrs. Mary Dalen ( As Individual): Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for inviting me to this information-sharing session.

I won't read all of my presentation because you have it all there; I'll just pick out the basics.

This is respecting the review of the First Nations Governance Act, Bill C-7, and related amendments to other acts. The First Nations Governance Act discussion group was held in Vancouver in 2002, and it provided meaningful discussions with Indian and Northern Affairs government officials. Bill C-61, which we dealt with in the discussion group, is now Bill C-7, a separate bill.

Although the changes about to be made are necessary, we were told at the discussion group information session that the FNGA will not replace the Indian Act. For many years I have said that the Indian Act is old and has kept the people frozen in time. The document that is soon to be legislated sets out changes to the Indian Act, which dates back to 1876, and my hope is that this will not lead to another, third order of government for each of the different first nations.

The FNGA bill's objective, that of Bill C-6, is to provide people under the Indian Act the tools they need for effective financial accountability governance. This is an act respecting leadership selection, administration, and accountability of Indian bands and to make related amendments to other acts. The act that came about in 1876 was intended for....

Prior to British Columbia entering Confederation in 1871, the colonial government reserved various lands for use and occupation of Indians. Article 13 of the terms of union between British Columbia and Canada required this province to convey lands to Canada in trust for the use and benefit of the Indians pursuant to subsection 91(24) of the BNA Act. Therefore, in each area where they found Indians living or occupying land, governments at the time set aside reserve land for the specific use and benefit of Indians. There was no mention of elected chiefs and councillors. There were missionaries, Indian agents, and Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

I see in this bill that the office of natural resources is still included in the affairs of Indian people. This means different issues today. Before that, Indian people were classed under energy and mines, so I question the legality of these changes being made on our behalf, changes that are supposedly for the betterment of our lives, because today it seems the Indian people have become a huge Indian industry.

Following is what I've tried to learn about the changes being made in Bill C-7. The Indian Act now in place has archaic laws and legislation that do not fit into today's modern times. The old Indian Act prevents some bands and Indian Affairs from serving the needs of people more effectively, but will these fundamental changes really serve the basic needs of grassroots band members both on and off reserve? There are many grassroots Indian people who are left out of the Indian Affairs system.

¾ (0815)

I have sections on band governance with my comments on that and on registries of codes and laws. This is about personal information, which should be treated as and kept confidential, as it is kept by the province and federal government.

I'm skipping band-defined codes.

Financial management and accountability code. Clauses 8 and 9 are on generally accepted accounting principles and generally accepted auditing standards. These have been used by bands and other first nations offices, yet the financial reports are not precise. This is not the fault of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants.

Inspections and search. I think these are too broad, and I have my comments here, but I don't have the Indian Act with me. All clauses from 23 to 29 are about search and seizure. What are missing in these clauses or are to be implemented are the legal rights in subsection 89(1) in the Indian Act. This subsection is still in the act and overrules all of the sections in the new FNGA. Subsection 89(1) would supersede clauses 23 to 29 inclusive.

And then I have my comments on complaints and redress, powers of band councils, and legal capacity. I'm asking, what is the meaning of a “natural person”?

Further down I have something on law-making powers and other subjects we raised in the consultation from the fact sheet, and I've enclosed that. At the communities' first nations consultations, other matters that were important were represented to the ministers. What matters to us is being left out of benefits provided for Indian people under the Indian Act.

As to lands inherited and property rights, these date back 100 years, and during the 1950s people who belonged to a band of their own at the arrival of the missionaries and Indian agents were amalgamated into other bands, although they had not left their place of birth.

How much time do I have?

The Chair: You have a minute and a half.

Mrs. Mary Dalen: I guess you can read what I've said here.

Policing for on-reserve has been tried on some reserves and it hasn't worked. It was a waste of government money or band funds that could have been better spent. People respect the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The RCMP are more effective in enforcing laws.

I enclose a fact sheet about what I'm talking about and a letter that I provided to you--I was at the first meeting of the governance group in Vancouver. I have page 5 here, which is important--complaints and redress. Band members have gone to the Minister of Indian Affairs with legitimate complaints concerning issues that are important to them, and those under duress and/or in a predicament are not dealt with. This is unfair to band members. Some of the concerns are very serious. Many times it is about accountability and how band funds are spent, including first nations offices that receive program money.

Many people have received answers from the minister that say these are internal matters to be settled among yourselves. The money or funding for programs does not get down to the grassroots Indian people.

I do not think an impartial person authorized or an impartial body established when it is still under clause 18 will work. This bill gives more powers and codes to make laws and regulations.

There are great concerns that the wording “non-derogation clause” is not in this bill. I heard this at the discussion group meetings in Vancouver, and I'm hearing it now.

¾ (0820)

The Chair: We're at 11 minutes. I'll ask you to take 15 seconds to conclude, please. And we do have your document.

Mrs. Mary Dalen: What were the nine different definitions of a non-derogation clause that Indian Affairs or the committee could not define that no consensus could be achieved on the exact wording? Was there further dialogue on this--

The Chair: Thank you very much. We're over our time, and every member will be given a copy of your presentation in both official languages.

We thank you very much for your presentation.

I've been told that what appeared as an individual presentation for 10 o'clock, the Skeena Native Development Society, represents 9 tribal groups, 25 villages, and 30,000 people, so we will have time to allow them 30 minutes instead of the 10 minutes for an individual, at 10 o'clock.

Is Norma Close here?

Are Justa Monk and Gerald Wesley here? Are you prepared to...? You have another five minutes, if you wish to wait for your colleagues.

Mr. Gerald Wesley (Co-chair, Northwest Tribal Treaty Nations): No. I will be presenting.

The Chair: Okay. We have 45 minutes together.

A voice: [Inaudible—Editor]

The Chair: I'm in a good mood this morning, so probably yes. Actually we've been really pushing for time, because it made a big difference for the group to get on the plane before the fog came down. But today we have to wait until noon for the ferry, so I'll get off my colleagues' backs and we're going to relax this morning and enjoy this.

I welcome Gerald Wesley, co-chair, Tsimshian Nation, Northwest Tribal Treaty Nations. We have 45 minutes together.

Please proceed.

Mr. Gerald Wesley: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My name is Gerald Wesley. I'd like a moment to correct one issue. I'm with the Tsimshian Nation. They will be presenting immediately following me, I believe, if our schedule is correct. I'm one of the co-chairs for the Northwest Tribal Treaty Nations, and I'll fill that in a little bit in a moment.

The committee is probably fortunate that it came in last evening and not the night before, when the winds were considerably rougher than they were yesterday.

Mr. Chair, delegates of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before you today. I've been known to ramble on a little bit sometimes. I'll try to be within my timeframe. I'd like the opportunity to interact with the committee as part of the presentation.

¾ (0825)

The Chair: You can ramble on all you want. You're talking to politicians and we're the best at that.

Mr. Gerald Wesley: I won't comment on that, Mr. Chairman.

As indicated, I'm one of two co-chairs of the Northwest Tribal Treaty Nations. That's a group of nations that stretch from Haida Gwaii to the west of us, east to the Rocky Mountain trench, if you follow the Highway 16 corridor, which you will be doing today, although I understand you'll be flying over it and ending up in Prince George.

I'd like to acknowledge the Tsimshian Nation, whose traditional territories we are on. These are the areas you'll hear more about later on.

Mr. Chairman and committee, our objective for the Northwest Tribal Treaty Nations, and that of most first nations, I believe, is to ensure that our inherent right to govern ourselves is not diminished and that provisions for the full and uncontested recognition and implementation of that right is available to first nations.

That's not the theme of what I'll be presenting on, but that's certainly a key component of it.

I offer some background on who we are, as far as the Northwest Tribal Treaty Nations is concerned. We're an association of first nations and tribal groups in northern British Columbia. In the correspondence we sent out to the clerk a few weeks ago, I think we included some indication as to who we are, and in the information package that has been circulated today, there's an address list or a fax mailout list indicating the numbers of first nations and including friendship centres in some of the larger urban centres, Prince Rupert, Terrace, Smithers, and Prince George. We interact to make sure we reach out to as many of our people as possible.

As to the numbers, we figure there are about 50 or so first nations and tribal groups that we associate with. I will be very cautious in ensuring that we don't speak on behalf of any of our first nations directly. We are simply a common association of people wanting to come together to help each other.

On that basis, we look at common issues to improve, for example, the treaty-making process in British Columbia. You probably heard that already when you were in Nanaimo. But there are some other areas that I'd like to give a little bit of background on as far as what we attempt to address, topics of concern to first nations throughout the north, and probably throughout British Columbia. One we look at is addressing government legislation that might impact on us. All of us have memories, in our world at least, of the 1985 federal Bill C-31 dealing with membership. All of us are aware and have impacts from the 1999 Corbier Supreme Court of Canada decision. I'm sure those have come up already. We also monitor those. As an association we've been looking at how we might address, for example, the current federal gun legislation and some of the implications of that on first nations.

Other areas, and more relevant to the presentation today--we look at protecting our traditional structures of governance. For example, virtually all of the first nations in northern British Columbia have a system somewhere in their past of recognizing a hereditary chieftainship as part of our structure, not today's Indian Act election system, although that's strong and prevalent as well. We also look to assist in the review and attention of family-related and social-related issues. For example, we have a subcommittee dealing with health and we have a subcommittee dealing with family and child services, just to give you an indication of the types of issues we try to deal with collectively.

As stated in our Northwest Tribal Treaty Nations phase one report, dated May 27, 2002--and this was sent out earlier to the committee and is included in the handouts again today--we started our review and our involvement with the First Nations Governance Act almost as soon as it was announced. We've gone into some background, but in general--I guess that was late in the year 2000. We heard Minister Nault at that time talking about a desire for change and some of the rationale for it.

Some of the issues stood out to us. Like others, we took offence at some of the claims of poor financial management, tainted political representation, and deficient legal capacity of first nations. We took offence because we know that those are some realities in the world, but the way it was presented to us, I think, was that all first nations across Canada are continuing to practice poor financial management, have corrupt leaders, etc. It really wasn't a good beginning to what today is being promoted as a First Nations Governance Act.

¾ (0830)

Immediately, in engaging, we met with some process flaws. As we indicate, we felt there was indeed merit in addressing the constraints to first nations governance. We feel that we, as NWTT--NWTT is our acronym for the Northwest Tribal Treaty Nations--were among the first of a number of smaller first nation groups across Canada to accept and to attempt to willingly and proactively engage in a cooperative process to address implications of the First Nations Governance Act.

Our recommended approach--and this is the way we went--was fairly simple. We put forward three concepts. One, to Indian and Northern Affairs we said relax the time schedule. The timeframe of two years' development--actually, it was about 18 months at that point--was too short. Two, there should be a staged process of approach to ensure that first nations are involved. And three, provisions should be made for first nations structures themselves to be directly involved as lead components of community interaction with our first nations. Also, as part of that third step, we as first nations, and in this case the NWTT, should be a principal in trying to craft legislation that we feel will be clear, appropriate, and of relevance to first nations.

In general, at early stages we met with a lack of attention and support from the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs. That probably should have been a flag for us as to the types of issues we're involved with. Nevertheless, we did become involved from the early conceptual stage. We had interaction with the minister's office, with the regional office out of Vancouver, trying to establish a process. It took quite some time for that to happen. The end result, just very briefly, was a detailed stage one report, again, as you've indicated. And if you flip through any of the pages, we've included a number of anecdotal comments and references--the issues that our people across the north felt were important to them. Not many of them were directly related to the concepts contained within the FNGA, the First Nations Governance Act. We think that's significant. I won't go into a whole lot of detail on that, but just flag it. When our people are talking about improvements, talking about governance, it's not a narrow prescriptive area; it's very much broad-based, very much all implications and impacts on how we survive and move as first nations.

Just to step back for a moment, part of, I'm going to say, the selling job the minister made in trying to achieve change was a statement that Canada is facing 200 cases, legal challenges, because of weaknesses within the Indian Act. We weren't sure, and as a structure we tried to get information on what those challenges were--what kinds of cases, whether any of them were in British Columbia, whether any of them were within our territories here in the north--because we didn't want to engage in something that might undermine legitimate concerns, due process of first nations facing judiciary systems and recourse. To date, we still haven't received that.

It's a tidbit of information I present for the committee, because I've not seen anything since, as a development of this minister, that in any way addresses the early reference the minister put forward. And he did it consistently and very strongly in British Columbia at least. I don't know what he did across the rest of Canada.

Just moving on, we've become involved--we had a partnership of sorts--with the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, and we acknowledge and appreciate those efforts. I think that's reflected, again, in our stage one report. But the areas we haven't been involved with, as far as the proposal we put forward on how to progress--what would be an effective staged approach, timelines, etc.--I believe have rendered our participation as relatively insignificant. So while we can stand up and say we talked to 800 of our members, we got into 51 communities, in the same fashion that the minister says we talked to 2,000 contact points and whatever it might be, I think it's really not of great relevance. Yes, the ability to contact our few number of people, and we were very pleased with the participation, I think is a reflection of the overall process.

¾ (0835)

Indian and North Affairs advocates that they have made provisions for good, positive input of first nations across Canada. Well, we don't agree with that. There was input, but we don't believe the implications of it were great enough that anybody could say we now have the support and direct involvement of first nations.

Because I've mentioned it a couple of times, I'll briefly talk about our four-stage process. In our background document, if you look on page 11 of the big document, our stage one report, we said we, as NWTT, would direct community and membership discussions and summarize findings. The second stage was to involve bringing that report back to the communities to see if we had fairly captured issues surrounding FNGA that we had to capture. The third stage was our proposed involvement in the joint development of a proposal between us and Indian and Northern Affairs. That has not happened at all. The fourth stage was to have our direct involvement in assisting in the crafting of legislation.

We saw ourselves moving along. I would just point out that this is some input toward the legislation, but we don't feel this hearing is that participation. It's a component we saw coming, but it's not our participation. It again brings back the issue I touched on briefly earlier--the consultation mechanisms in front of first nations are woefully lacking.

The Northwest Tribal Treaty Nations have developed in preparation for our process guiding principles to governance. They helped us to accompany and get into our communities. We added to them as part of our discussions. Here's just some brief indication of them.

People said legislation should be optional. Hereditary systems or our traditional governance should be guarded and protected. There should be references to the fiduciary responsibilities where there is a relationship between the Crown and first nations. These are an indication of some of the concepts we brought to the communities and we came out of the communities with.

As I said earlier, we had some success in working with the department, but there are a whole lot of shortcomings as well. As part of that we raised a concern with the minister's office in early 2002 regarding the FNGA process. We said we felt we had an assurance from most senior offices within the region and on a national level to address some items that aren't part of what's being proposed as Bill C-7 right now but would be addressed outside of that or later on--for example, the whole concept of self-government, the whole concept of treaty-related issues, and the whole concept of social and economic conditions as related to governance. The minister's office said those can be addressed later or outside of this legislation. Well, we don't see enough yet that shows there's that link in there.

We also raised the concern a year ago that the department was too rapidly developing legislative changes without providing any first nations review or input--again touching on the issue of consultations. Here in British Columbia the issue of consultation, especially over the last six months, is a really hot topic. I think the courts are directing that there has to be more than just talking to people. It's more than a consultation. If it doesn't accommodate our interest, then there must be greater checks and balances.

I'm not going through all the presentation. You've probably noted that already. I'm going to jump to a recommendation to the committee, Mr. Chair.

One of our first recommendations is more general, as far as process--that the results of Bill C-7 should not be imposed on first nations. That's our recommendation.

¾ (0840)

However, along with that, we feel that an option can be provisions for ongoing development and opting in by first nations in a similar fashion to what has happened under the federal First Nations Land Management Act legislation that came down a couple of years ago.

We also add and feel strongly that ongoing development should be a joint government and first nations process, and this process has not taken place that way. I guess I have to look to our relationship through the Assembly of First Nations, based out of Ottawa and different than in B.C., but out of Ottawa there was no relationship, there was no partnership, and we feel this is critical; this is a requirement--I don't say to the AFN in Ottawa, by the way.

The second major issue that strikes our attention--the first one being process--is dealing with the inherent right to self-government. It might be easy to ask, what is it, as Pierre Elliott Trudeau did in the mid-1980s when we were talking about self-government, and what do you want? Well, I guess probably along the lines of our response as first nations to those first ministers conferences back then, we don't offer a definitive or an exhaustive description, but we do offer some observations that we'd like to share with the committee on what we think components of the inherent right of self-government are.

One is recognition that historically we are, and were, self-governing. We developed our own laws and related authorities. There was no delegation from any other source, as the Province of British Columbia has suggested over the last couple of years as one of the options to be considered.

A one-size-fits-all approach that we see as being framed within the FNGA will not work. Our cultural, geographic, and social characteristics are just too diverse, here in the north, here in British Columbia, and certainly across Canada.

We think any proposed federal changes should be interim in nature and bridging to the inherent right of self-government.

Provisions must be for all members, both on and off reserve, on and off treaty lands that are coming in British Columbia--this is one of the few areas where we look at a specific.

Chairman and committee members, there are other issues surrounding the inherent right to self-government. These are just a few. I just wanted to give a little bit of a flavour and move into another recommendation, our second one, dealing with the inherent right.

We recommend that any federal legislation impacting us should have protection in, commonly, as it's called at this level, a non-derogation clause. I know you've heard this, but our recommendation is for some specific wording, and I'll quote:

Notwithstanding any other provision, this Act shall not abrogate or derogate from the Aboriginal and Treaty rights of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada, including the right to self-government.

So that's our second recommendation, for a non-derogation clause, and we're aware that, for example, the Assembly of First Nations B.C. regional vice-chief gave a presentation with a similar recommendation, with probably different words, either yesterday or the day before. We're supportive of that. Whatever the words themselves, I think you get the point. There's an issue there that first nations are concerned about. Our first nations in this area are concerned about it as well.

The third major area deals with implications of fiduciary responsibility, what happens, what takes place between the minster and his responsibility and first nations. We just say a couple of simple things, that as long as the minister retains ultimate control over our governments and our lives, the Crown has an obligation to conduct itself in a manner that's in our best interests. That's our simplest statement as to what “fiduciary” might be.

We don't feel that first nations should be forced to accept an offloading of responsibilities in the name of gaining control without the necessary research, resources, and protection to support such transfers.

I'm editing very much, Chair and committee members, but I'd like to keep us specifically on our third recommendation in this case, dealing with that. Our recommendation to this committee is that a joint analysis involving first nations be undertaken to assess the fiduciary relationship and the proposed First Nations Governance Act as a precursor to legislative enactment. We think, at least to the best of our knowledge, that work hasn't been done, that the federal government in this case hasn't looked at....

¾ (0845)

If we're developing a process to give greater authority to first nations, that's good, but if it's diminishing some of the responsibility, unwittingly or otherwise, that Canada maintains until other forms of agreements are in place, then a mistake is being made. So on that basis, we feel that a study or further study and work should be carried out. It should be carried out in a joint process between the federal government and first nations in some fashion.

The fourth area of concern to us is surrounding the codes and regulations. We'll give an example of two issues.

One is that there is a restricted time period for the development of custom rules of government and how they would be applied. We have concerns about that. I know the previous speaker was talking of hereditary values. I think that's a relationship that we share as well.

It also indicates a two-year timeframe. If that FNGA is enacted today, we as first nations have two years to do something. If we don't do something, default regulations are going to be imposed.

The Chair: I have to clear that up. If it's enacted today, the minister has committed to sit with the first nations to develop the codes and the regulations, and once agreement is reached, then we have two years. That has to be clear.

Mr. Gerald Wesley: Thank you, Chair. We weren't aware of that change.

Nevertheless, yes, you have addressed the issue, and maybe the minister has finally heard that first nations are going to contest the application and the enforcement of what up until now have simply been blanket codes, and we don't know what's going to be within them, period.

On that basis, we present...I think I'm on the fourth set of recommendations now and a subset in here. Our recommendation to the committee is that legislation impacting first nations custom rule for leadership selection should allow for custom codes into the future and beyond the two-year window of opportunity.

Secondly, legislation imposing default regulations must provide a clear indication of what those regulations contain and the degree of flexibility first nations will have to build on or to change those default regulations. Mr. Chairman, I think your words perhaps make that second point redundant. Nevertheless, I'll maintain it as part of our recommendation.

I'm very close to the end, delegates.

The fifth area of importance to us is the whole concept or category of nation building. We'd like to reiterate some of the opening comments. Our objective is to ensure that the inherent right of self-government is protected and that provisions for the full and uncontested recognition of those rights is available to first nations. We're interested in developing a bridge to true self-government--I think that's first and foremost for us--and a positive nation-building model.

Chair and committee, I know that nation building.... You heard a presentation in Ottawa by Dr. Stephen Cornell--I believe it was in Ottawa--associated with the Harvard Project, the American Indian project. We've been aware of that. Because of the treaty-making in British Columbia, we've had interaction with Dr. Cornell and some of his colleagues. So a couple of the references will probably sound similar or familiar to you, and that's part of the reason for it.

Nevertheless, our bridge and some of the characteristics...and I'm picking up a little bit from where we go, what are some key components of nation building. Exercising sovereignty--realizing and accepting there will be mistakes and that we'll learn from them as first nations. That's a part of what sovereignty might be all about, or true self-government.

Creating effective governing institutions to address financial matters, to manage, to enforce regulations, and to adjudicate legal requirements or disputes. Those are components of this FNGA, and we don't go into detail on them, other than to acknowledge them. We do say, however, that in this case nation building...and we make a point towards the federal government that there should be a significant investment in institutional capacity building to support that. We don't see that as part of this yet.

We also believe that provisions must reflect individual first nations values in our governing institutions to ensure--and here's a common word--cultural match is found. Again, this goes back to the fact that in our opinion one size will not fit all.

We also say that as part of sound government or nation building, a productive, functioning economy requires access and jurisdiction over lands and resources; that the treaty-making process, as poor as it might be in British Columbia, is an effort to address some of those components, our access and our jurisdiction over lands and resources.

We also see as one of the components of nation building that Canada and first nations parade in a partnership relationship, more so than they are today. That means, though, that Canada must be prepared to relinquish some of its powers, as the powers of first nations go up.

¾ (0850)

The Chair: I will allow two more minutes so that each party will have five minutes for questioning.

Mr. Gerald Wesley: Mr. Chairman, our final recommendation to this committee regarding Bill C-7 is that you postpone the advancement of the implementation of this bill pending defined and clear involvement of first nations, as recommended in our four-stage process.

We also feel that Canada should engage in undertaking long-term case studies similar in scope to the Harvard Project. It could be initiated on a pilot basis across Canada.

We also feel there should be a review and representation of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples report, particularly those dealing with the governance chapter.

Mr. Chairman, we could go on, and we would go on, but time doesn't allow that, even though I gained a little bit beyond what was set.

Consistent with our vision, I'd like to close by looking back to words of yesterday or many days ago, and we're going to leave the reference to some of those words. I'll read from a quote:

...this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.

I'm sure, Mr. Chairman, you recognize that very famous quote, the Gettysburg Address by President Abraham Lincoln in 1863.

We're saying that as first nations people within Canada, we seek a level of freedom with our own government--a government built on our values, developed by our people, and for the benefit of all.

Mr. Chairman and delegates to this committee, we think you're in a position that's unique and important to the first nations of Canada now. We've shared some information with you. The text of it is available and in front of you. Our message is delivered. Now you have the enviable or unenviable task of trying to sort through today's session. We hope you've heard our words and take them into advice. We offer up our willingness to cooperate with the committee in review, and on that basis I'd entertain any questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We did hear your words, we have the text, and they will be very helpful in our deliberations when we go to clause-by-clause.

Five minutes, Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance): I want to start off first, Mr. Wesley, thanking you for your fairly thorough and full presentation. It was very constructive on most points.

I want to also read into the record a quick letter to those present today. It's with respect to the present member of Parliament for this area, Andy Burton. He's unable to be here because of responsibilities elsewhere today, but his executive assistant, Colleen Davis, is here on his behalf. Of course, they will be monitoring the Hansard record and so on and would be welcome to engage with the different attendants here today with respect to this very crucial Bill C-7.

He says he believes it's “potentially important legislation” in its impact, so they're “keenly interested in input on the issues and concerns that witnesses will have with regard to this Bill”. He says to “please feel free to talk one on one”, if the opportunity arises, and they'll gladly pass the concerns on to him.

He wishes “the Committee well with its fact-finding” and hopes “that these meetings will provide the members present with valuable insight as they seek the views of First Nations, members, leaders, and organizations on the proposed Act.” That is an invite to input from the local member of Parliament, Andy Burton.

I want to ask you, Gerald, as I read this fairly thorough and well put together, it appears, brief, especially as we get to the one page here with guiding principles of government, some of these, at least to me, appear to be the broader picture of self-government issues that are actually in some sense beyond the scope of Bill C-7. I'm just wondering, I see Bill C-7 as a more temporary interim transitional thing . Certainly there are these other areas to be addressed in a full picture. But would you say that some of these things are really more a broader picture of self-government issues? Do you want them included in Bill C-7 or at least acknowledged or nodded at in some way? Do you know the question I'm asking you? It's pretty broadly embraced in here.

¾ (0855)

Mr. Gerald Wesley: I do, Mr. Vellacott, thank you.

Yes, they are broad. I guess I'd categorize that as part of the procedural weakness of the approach the minister has presented. The effort is to address one component of good governance, and we don't think that's appropriate. We think, for example, if all those principles could be addressed, in this case within Bill C-7, it would make it much more palatable and acceptable to first nations. That's what we don't see--where or how and when do we effectively engage in some of those broad-scope issues of true self-government discussions.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Okay. I have another question. I come from the prairies. My constituency is Saskatoon--Wanuskewin. With Plains Indians it's a whole different thing. You've talked about one size not fitting all, and I think rightly so.

I have a question on the hereditary chief and the hereditary leadership concept, because out on the prairies we have had this understanding historically that there is not nearly so much of that. If somebody had the skills and the competencies for the hunt or the war or various areas, then they took the lead on that. Do your people have, from time to time, because things evolve over time...? We non-aboriginal people had a hereditary system we called royalty, and there's the dispute with respect to what relevance the monarchy has today. There is some discussion back and forth. Do your people have a possibility from time to time to decide whether they want to move to a different system rather than a hereditary one, from within? Is that a possibility? Would people periodically decide whether they want to move away from hereditary, is my question.

Mr. Gerald Wesley: That is a very good question.

I can't speak in that regard on behalf of the Northwest Tribal Treaty Nations, but I can speak with some ability for my own community, Kitsumkalum, which is not too far up the river from here. One of the options we are considering is exactly that--a blend to make sure our hereditary system is maintained, but also to make sure we're able to carry forward what is today seen as a democratic right of selecting leadership. In our community currently we have six elected council members. We also have hereditary chiefs who really don't play a direct role. The blend we're considering is to have four hereditary chiefs who would not turn over and provisions for four elected council representatives or leadership representatives.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Martin.

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

Five minutes don't really give me enough time to compliment you for the incredible work you have done here and the very great points you have made.

To summarize, I guess I hear from you--you are telling us in the most diplomatic of terms--that you don't believe there was genuine, broad consultation, because real consultation means accommodation of at least some of the issues brought to the table.

I thank you for the document with all of these personal comments from the people you actually heard from. In scanning these comments, I don't see one of these people who came forward calling for new accounting rules or a new way to elect leaders. They're talking about basic needs issues--housing, education, health care, resource management. Those are the issues.

My question to you is this. Do you feel you had real input into the crafting of Bill C-7? We've just heard the chair say, oh, don't worry, you're going to have real input in the crafting of the codes and regulations. Does Bill C-7 accurately reflect the issues brought to you in the consultation process?

¿ (0900)

The Chair: Just one point I want to clear up. I didn't say, don't worry. I'm in politics and I worry all the time about government.

Mr. Pat Martin: A number of times, though, Mr. Chair, you've actually interrupted witnesses to tell them, don't be concerned because when it comes to crafting the codes and regulations, you will be fully engaged and you'll craft your own codes and regulations.

The Chair: You're exaggerating. I never said don't be concerned.

Mr. Pat Martin: I've quietly listened to you. Maybe--

The Chair: I've never said they would be fully engaged.

Just a moment. You're making statements. You've done this since you joined the group. You're exaggerating things and you're not repeating. You're quoting me and you're adding to it.

Mr. Pat Martin: You are overstepping the boundaries of the chair when you interrupt witnesses to assure them--

The Chair: I can interrupt anybody. That's why I'm the chair.

Don't put words in my mouth and don't exaggerate what I say. We'll go back to the blues and we'll clear it up.

I'm telling you now that I'm not telling you not to worry. I'm in politics because I worry. I want to change things, but don't--

Mr. Pat Martin: The empirical evidence is there was no participation in the crafting of Bill C-7, but I hope that didn't take away from my five minutes.

The Chair: Don't worry. I wouldn't dare do that.

Mr. Pat Martin: I'd like to hear from the witness.

Mr. Gerald Wesley: Thank you, Mr. Martin.

The short answer is no, we don't feel Bill C-7, as crafted, fairly represents the issues that we heard as far as the Northwest Tribal Treaty. We believe we had very clear identification and interaction with a limited number of first nations representatives in northern British Columbia. We continue to feel that more has to be done, and that's why we proposed a very specific process that we think still could accommodate and meet those needs.

Mr. Pat Martin: Could you speak to that briefly? I understand your recommendation is to put the brakes on Bill C-7.

Mr. Gerald Wesley: That is one of our recommendations.

Mr. Pat Martin: You want to stop it at this stage and maybe try again after a genuine consultation process and study.

Mr. Gerald Wesley: We believe it's not too late to build on the work and some of the effort that has been initiated.

Mr. Pat Martin: On the non-derogation clause, could you re-emphasize the message it sends to people and the legitimate apprehension they may feel about this bill if it consciously excludes any reference to not diminishing inherent rights?

Mr. Gerald Wesley: I can only repeat that our very strong recommendation is that there be a non-derogation clause to ensure that the inherent right of self-government for first nations is not in any way diminished.

We see a change coming, but that change should not take place until there's been very fair, clear, and agreed-upon arrangements between first nations and the Crown. This bill will not do it.

Mr. Pat Martin: On the implementation of Bill C-7, we have every reason to believe it is going to be rammed through. The NDP is doubtful they're going to allow meaningful amendments.

When it comes time to implement Bill C-7, could you speak to the impact, or possibly even the financial impact, of trying to implement all of these fundamental changes in the way you do business if you're a community of a couple of hundred people, for instance?

Mr. Gerald Wesley: I can't speak with a whole lot of authority, except to say we have concerns about the implications of first nations being inadvertently forced to concentrate a lot of time and energy on addressing their own codes, the components of FNGA. We don't know the costs associated with that.

I am privy to a report that may have been shared with the Assembly of First Nations office or the summit office earlier this week. It gives estimates that are pretty scary. We're talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars per first nation, potentially.

The Chair: Monsieur Binet.

¿ (0905)

[Translation]

Mr. Gérard Binet (Frontenac—Mégantic, Lib.): Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My name is Gérard Binet, and I am a member of Parliament from Quebec. There are no aboriginal communities in my area; or rather there were some in the past, but that was a long time ago. The fact is that my view of things is somewhat different from that of my other colleagues here.

Before becoming a member of Parliament, I was a mayor. During that period I implemented a merger project involving four different communities. There was a deep-seated fear among the people of these communities that they risked losing their identity, and this is similar to what we will be discussing here.

My question is the following. Mr. Nault asked the drafters of this bill to avoid affecting native rights. In your opinion, has this request been respected?

[English]

Mr. Gerald Wesley: Thank you, Mr. Binet. We believe our rights could be infringed upon if there aren't more protection mechanisms within this proposed bill. Again, the best way of not infringing upon our rights is to make sure we walk side by side in developing proposed legislation.

[Translation]

Mr. Gérard Binet: If I understood correctly, you represent some 50 communities. Presumably some of them are not very large.

With respect to codes, do you think that some of these communities, which are not really interested in this procedure, will simply let the system go ahead and accept a code by default?

[English]

Mr. Gerald Wesley: Thank you again. There are two points. Some of our member communities are indeed very small. Within the Tsimshian area--and you might hear of this later on--I believe our smallest community is just shy of 500 people. But we have some that are very small, with just dozens of people, throughout the north and in British Columbia. So that is an issue.

The capacity of those smaller communities in particular, if they're not associated with other groups.... My community, Kitsumkalum, is associated with the Tsimshian Tribal Council, which can perhaps assist, but I think there's concern about the uncertainty on default codes.

I'd just like to touch on your past experience as a mayor. Today, like cities in Quebec, we too are reaching out to the local government. For example, we've had discussions with the City of Prince Rupert. There's a northern municipalities association, and the Northwest Tribal Treaty Nations has met with them. Our intent is to say, “What's common; what can we do together?”

It's consistent with the theme most of us in British Columbia and in the north would like to have. It's time for us to work closer together. We'd put out our hands in that regard. That's why we are cautious in how we present and what we recommend as part of this presentation.

¿ (0910)

The Chair: You have 30 seconds.

[Translation]

Mr. Gérard Binet: Finally, I would like to say that our week of travel is coming to an end and it has been a pleasure to have these discussions with you. I congratulate you very sincerely for your real interest in moving things ahead.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Binet.

Thank you very much for an excellent presentation. It will be helpful for the committee members during our deliberations.

Mr. Gerald Wesley: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and delegates. I wish you well in your travels.

The Chair: Thank you.

I now invite, from the Tsimshian Tribal Council, the president, Mr. Robert Hill. Again, we have allocated 45 minutes for this part.

For members in the audience, we have another presentation after this one from the Skeena Native Development Society, for 30 minutes. After that we will invite anyone in attendance who wishes to make a comment. We will allow you two minutes each for that purpose. You'll need to register with the people at the table outside the door, but we will invite you to present on your own behalf.

Mr. Hill, welcome.

Mr. Robert Hill (President, Tsimshian Tribal Council): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, let me welcome your committee to the territory of the Tsimshian. In our laws it behooves me to address you in our own language, and I will do so just as a formality.

[Witness speaks in his native language]

Chiefs, matriarchs, honoured guests, and the people who are present in the building this morning, good morning to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources, and welcome to the Tsimshian territory.

Before I begin our presentation on the First Nations Governance Act, I will let you know who we are. We are a nation that comprises seven individual first nations. To the north of us are the allied tribes of Laxkw'alaams, and across the harbour are Metlakatla, Kitkatla, Kitselas, Kitsumkalum, the Gitga'at people, as well as the Kitasoo and Xaixais peoples. We number approximately 7,300 registered members, according to the Indian Act membership list.

It's not uncommon for our nation to use the number 10,000, as we have another affiliated member in the United States, primarily Metlakatla in Alaska.

We are of one language group, Sm'algyax, which is linguistically common to our neighbours, the Nisga'a and the Gitxsan nations.

The Tsimshian territory covers approximately 13,000 square miles, or 3.4 million hectares of the northwestern portion of the province of British Columbia. The halfway point between here and the northern tip of Vancouver Island is the Kitasoo and the Xaixais territories. Our territory goes west to where we meet the territories of the Haida Nation, and east to about the halfway point between Terrace and New Hazelton on Highway 16 are the Kitselas and Kitsumkalum territories, and north up to over the border of Alaska are the allied tribes territories of Laxkw'alaams.

Tsimshian people have been on our territory for thousands of years. We maintain rights and title to our territory.

According to our membership officer, an estimated 70% of our people live off reserve, or live away from their respective communities. The lack of housing, the lack of employment, as well as educational services, health services, and recreation opportunities are some of the reasons for this. Simply put, there is no economic base in the communities they are from, so they have to seek opportunity elsewhere. They find that in major urban areas. That's where our people tend to congregate simply as a means of survival.

Historically, our people were among the most prosperous first nations. We had land to live on and travel on. We had natural resources of fish and seafood, wildlife, and the forests and the waters of our territories to provide for us. We had a thriving economic base from the resources and we had trade and commerce with our neighbours. We also had our own functioning and capable government. It was based on our tribal affiliations, our cultural values, and the well-being of our people for the land and its resources.

¿ (0915)

This brings us to an appropriate starting point for our observations regarding the proposed legislation, a First Nations Governance Act.

I believe it is safe to say that there is a large gap of information as to what this legislation will do. Even though we are an active participant and a supporter of the Northwest Tribal Treaty structure, as they pointed out earlier, this process of consulting with our people was not effective.

We had information sessions in a majority of our communities, but there was so much information and it was in such a standard that many members could not relate. It was changed so quickly from the concept stage to the proposed legislation that we do not know for sure exactly what was happening.

This should be a major concern to the committee.

One more point of background for the Tsimshian Tribal Council and the structure we have today is that the tribal council is not a governing body for members. Each of the seven member first nations has their own band council and administrative structure that will be directly responsible for implications of the First Nations Governance Act. Our role is to assist for global issues and support requirements for the nation as a whole.

On this particular topic today we will speak to our most general issues.

We have been told through Indian and Northern Affairs that this act will provide more effective tools of governance, and that will not replace the Indian Act, but some parts of the Indian Act will change.

We were also advised that if we do not do anything with respect to this legislation we will have more regulations imposed upon us as first nations. As first nations we have been having someone else's rules and regulations imposed upon us ever since the Indian Act was written, and here we are a hundred years or so after the original Indian Act and all of its failures and we are being told again “Here is something that is good for you; either do it or we will do it for you.” We believe that's entirely wrong.

I would like to refer back to our original form of governance. We are a matriarchal society. Our lineage and our structures flow through the women of our nation. Historically, we have had a strong form of governance. We have hereditary chiefs who are still with us today, and to a large degree we still follow that form of governance, with all its appropriate laws, or ayaawx. They are the stewards of our lands and resources and are responsible to ensure sustainability for future generations. They are the heads of our tribal structure. The hereditary chiefs are clear symbolism that our culture and our people thrive.

Canada has stated that it recognizes the inherent right to self-government. This is positive; however, we cannot help but feel concerned that this act will further erode our structure of hereditary governance. The provisions for bands to maintain or develop a custom code are not clear for development or application. It appears that if a first nation does not currently have a custom code, for example, to reflect its hereditary structure, and if it does not develop one within two years, it loses the chance to do so at any point in the future, and even if it does develop a custom code within two years, the minister has the right to reject it.

Also related to this, another provision makes reference to the full application of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Our culture and our customs are related to our hereditary chieftains and may not be compatible with the direct application of the charter. Our dominant concern is that this legislation would adversely impact traditional structures of the Tsimshian government, thereby infringing on the inherent right of self-government. This should be another major concern for the committee.

The last major point I would present today is with regard to the requirements and the implications for our first nations if this bill is enacted.

¿ (0920)

The experience of dealing with band voting regulations, as a result of the Corbiere case, demonstrates that the local government will have to dedicate an extreme amount of time, personnel, and financial resources to develop new rules and regulations.

The Department of Indian and Northern Affairs has not indicated what level of financial or other support will be made available and does not seem to be aware of the distraction this will cause to our communities.

The very issue being pursued, strengthening band governance, will likely diminish the effectiveness of community building if the bands are forced to dedicate too much time and too much energy to fulfilling the requirements of the First Nations Governance Act. Again, this should be a major concern to this committee.

As previous presenters, our time is short here this morning, and as stated earlier, for the tribal council I'm only addressing very general issues, but issues that are important to the Tsimshian. Again, I thank you for your time.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We have 34 minutes left for questioning. We'll go to a seven-minute round. Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Thank you.

You made a comment, Mr. Hill, with respect to the Canadian Human Rights Act. As you would be aware, no doubt, this brings greater application of that act with the supposed repeal of section 67. You made a comment with respect to that. My question is this: in our world today, where basic human rights--and maybe it does veer off more in the way of individual rights--are pretty crucial around the world, would you not agree that there has to be a way to address some of your concerns, but also basic human rights for individual grassroots band members?

I have a concern that we have the trumping of the Canadian Human Rights Act even yet in Bill C-7 by way of some of the issues of customs, cultures, and so on. Maybe you can respond to that, and maybe I'll get the reassurance over time here too. I'm sure there aren't those kinds of implications here, but when you think of overseas, when customs and culture might have to do with things like female circumcision, mutilation, and so on, we certainly have, I think, as a mass of people here today, problems with that, and yet there's always the reference back to that being custom, culture, and so on. So how does one balance that thing and juggle that through?

I don't know fully all your cultural and custom things, and I want to be respectful of them, but are there things for which you would need to trump the Human Rights Act because you say it's going to intrude on this area? I'm a little concerned. The hereditary might. Are there other areas as well?

¿ (0925)

Mr. Robert Hill: Thank you for your question.

As stated earlier, the presentation is very broad and general. There will be some issues that I think would be of concern with regard to the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.

One must understand that the hereditary system is very much misinterpreted in a lot of areas. I was talking about a hereditary chief; in essence, he's the steward of the land. I heard earlier your question regarding royalty. The hereditary chief is a symbol of authority amongst our people. Without delving too much into his authority, I will only say that as a hereditary chief, being born into the slot, or in your case royalty, in effect, being steward of the land, his pockets are always empty, and in some cases they should be sewn up for the benefit of his people. It is not a dictatorship, as some have misinterpreted it, but he certainly is the symbol of authority for the well-being of the nation.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: So is that the major area, then, in terms of where it would be a concern, that there would be an intrusion by the full application of the Canadian Human Rights Act? Would there be other areas, or is that the major area?

Mr. Robert Hill: That would be the only major area.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Yes.

Mr. Robert Hill: I would have to at least consult with those very same chiefs as well, with regard to your question, but it is very general and it is very broad. I think the main point I'm trying to make here is that the reality of the day for the Tsimshian is that we have to try to meld together and enjoy the best of both worlds, because, for the purposes of expediency, the tribal council structure is structured as such. Our general executive comprises the elected chief and council of each of the communities I represent. However, our board of directors is comprised of hereditary chiefs and/or a community appointee.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: So it may not be an issue.

I'm sure we share together that there could be the override or abuse of people's rights--that one example. I think it's fairly well known. I think there's a fair consensus on the issue of female circumcision, mutilation, whatever you want to call it, that we don't want to go down that road. We don't want to allow for those kinds of things.

That's why I had to respectfully ask the question, because maybe then there would be ways to work it out. But I think we'd all agree that we don't want abuse and the override of people's rights--suppression and various things like that.

I appreciate your responses on that. Thank you.

Mr. Robert Hill: Thank you very much. I understand.

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

Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian Alliance): Two minutes?

The Chair: Keep it short.

Mr. David Chatters: Okay, it will have to be short.

Your perspective on the development of the codes and the default codes is interesting, because our impression, at least mine, was that there was a lot of flexibility and a recognition of the uniqueness of bands to develop their own codes. I thought that was one of the strengths of the bill, that it allowed that real flexibility to incorporate those traditional structures into those codes.

I recognize your concern about the minister being able to override or turn down those codes. That's an area maybe we should be looking at some amendment to. But I thought the timelines were reasonable, given that you're allowed to have the resources to develop those.

Maybe you could just comment on that.

Mr. Robert Hill: Very quickly, I think the comment on that is the mere fact that 70% of our population as first nations reside away from their community. In one way, it's the majority of the community. But in another way, simply because your act is going to refer to the bands and the bands are the ones that are going to create the code, I think there needs to be provision for the 70% who reside away from their communities to have direct input into those codes.

¿ (0930)

Mr. David Chatters: Absolutely.

Mr. Robert Hill: What we're finding in some of the communities, right across this province anyway, is that the code is used to the advantage of the band or the community it comes from. So there's very little input--let alone the timing of the changes in development of the code--from that 70% who reside away from their respective communities. I think it's an issue that needs to be forthcoming.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Martin, seven minutes.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you, Mr. Hill, for your very interesting brief and the many points you make.

By both the tone and the content of this brief, it's becoming more clear to me that virtually nobody wants Bill C-7.

This is the first and most comprehensive legislative review of the Indian Act in maybe 50 years. Rather than dealing with issues of substance or the issues that first nations want to deal with, we're dealing with issues of bureaucratic administration, tinkering, and possibly even interfering with traditional inherent rights.

There's very rarely the political will to jump into the Indian Act and change it, because it's so complex, and the fear is that Parliament may not have the courage to open it up for another 50 years, so this is our one shot for this generation.

My question to you is, if you were given one shot in this generation to change or fix the Indian Act, would the issues in Bill C-7 be the issues you'd choose to deal with?

Mr. Robert Hill: That's a very difficult question. I would first congratulate the committee for travelling and consulting on the governance act, or the proposed legislation to change the Indian Act.

I must say this: if I were given the opportunity to revise it, then I would certainly address the issue of meaningful consultation with first nations that the act is going to be imposed upon. I think the method of consulting with first nations is wrong. I really think that as far as the Charter of Rights and Freedoms goes, we are human.

Having said that, if I were given the opportunity to revise the Indian Act.... By the way, it is an imposed form of governance for first nations, and I don't think anybody really likes the Indian Act. With that, I congratulate you for attempting to make the changes to it, but it's how you're changing it that is wrong with first nations. There simply is not enough consultation. There never will be, because we are diverse.

In the province of British Columbia and in coastal communities of first nations, we are a maritime people. I think there are laws that would be quite different, for example, for first nations in the prairie provinces, and even on the east coast.

It's a monumental undertaking, and that's why I highlighted the fact that I must congratulate this government for attempting to change the Indian Act, albeit as an imposed form of governance on first nations.

I hope I have answered your question.

Mr. Pat Martin: Somewhat.

I guess in the absence of any clear commitment in Bill C-7 to the contrary, in the form of a non-derogation clause, do you have reason to believe, or apprehension, that Bill C-7 will diminish or infringe on inherent rights or treaty rights, etc.?

Mr. Robert Hill: Bill C-7, by virtue of its language and by virtue of its proposed structure, is an infringement on the hereditary systems of first nations. Our inherent right to self-governance has been recognized and is listed in the Constitution of Canada. It's one thing to recognize and it's another thing to understand how we implement that self-governance right.

Every first nation throughout the land is completely different. An example is north of Cape Caution. They are a matrilineal society; south of that it's a patrilineal society. So there are lots of issues surrounding the Government of Canada in regard to the changes to the Indian Act.

I suppose this is probably the best and most palatable form of change to the Indian Act. Again, I must stipulate that it is an imposed form of governance on first nations people.

¿ (0935)

Mr. Pat Martin: Vice-Chief Satsan Herb George came to us yesterday with a very comprehensive package of amendments to Bill C-7, because they've resigned themselves to the fact that the current government of the day probably won't stop Bill C-7 and will see some form of it through to a final end.

Have you seen some of the amendments that...?

Mr. Robert Hill: I am aware of some of the amendments that Vice-Chief Satsan has put forward to benefit, in general terms, especially the province of British Columbia and its first nations.

Mr. Pat Martin: If those amendments went through, would you then be able to support an amended form of Bill C-7, as amended by the recommendations of the B.C. regional vice-chief?

Mr. Robert Hill: I certainly would.

Mr. Pat Martin: Those are all the questions I have. Thank you.

The Chair: I think the Liberals will be sharing time.

Seven minutes, Mr. Hubbard.

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

Good morning, Mr. Hill. It's certainly a pleasure to be here this morning and to hear your presentation on C-7 on behalf of your people.

Mr. Chair, I don't like to engage in philosophy, but in terms of the two provinces in the east that joined with the rest of Canada in 1867, when I look back I see that at that time we had one of the largest commercial fleets in the world, one of the largest banking institutions in Canada, and nearly half the manufacturing in Canada. You probably know, Mr. Hill, some of the stories about what has happened to Atlantic Canada in the last 125 years.

It's difficult to deal with time and place and what happens as we go forward. Sometimes going forward is not always progression, because globalization and a lot of the things that are happening tend to make us servants of outside forces we can't control.

I think, Mr. Chair, that the Indian Act of the 1870s is very archaic and out of date. I think at that time a good number of Canadian politicians were attempting in some way to protect our first nations people from the encroachment of white people upon their lands and their way of life. I know it doesn't look well in terms of today, but at that time there was the matter of protecting some lands within this country. I know it didn't meet the needs as time progressed. Today we politicians are trying to look forward. Bill C-7 is certainly not the ideal. It's far from it. But as the minister said, hopefully it's an interim measure that will bring some of that old act into the 21st century.

There are some points that you've brought out, which we really have to consider, Mr. Chair, as we go back to Ottawa and look at all of the different processes and suggestions that were made. For example, yesterday I brought up this concern you have of people living off reserve. I'm not sure how we can address that. The bill seems to indicate that people living off reserve can vote and become part of the process. But in terms of trying to manage where people live and to adequately look after their involvement with their homeland or the reserve they come from, it puts a tremendous pressure on your administration back home to make sure they are given their democratic right to vote. That, I think, is a very important part of the bill, which we have to address.

My friend brought up the concept of human rights. Of course, the bill refers to the charter. We as Canadians, and maybe all Canadians, aren't particularly happy with charters to some degree because quite often we have to go to the courts. As politicians we sometimes think the courts have become a more important part of our land than the bills we pass in Parliament.

Mr. Hill, we certainly appreciate your input. We'll try to look at that. I know that progress is not always progress when we view it individually, but collectively sometimes progress is progress, and some of us have to deal with that progress. I hope you and your people can look upon this bill as a step forward. I know that self-determination and eventual self-government are the ultimate objectives of your communities. We will certainly look at what you've said.

Hopefully, Mr. Chair, I have a few minutes left for my good friend here, who would also like to make a few comments.

¿ (0940)

[Translation]

The Chair: Three minutes.

Mr. Gérard Binet: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good morning, Mr. Hill. In your presentation you talked about your territory. One of my daughters is studying tourism, and she will be very jealous when I tell her everything I have seen. It is really wonderful. She is studying culture, and from your presentation I can see that you also have a beautiful culture.

In my first question this morning, I mentioned that I had been a mayor, and that I had arranged the merger of four communities that were afraid of losing their identity. There was also a problem of communication. I started the process by having a master plan drawn up. I did not force it upon people, nor was I forced to do so by the government. My municipality was the only one in Quebec to go through a merger process without being forced to do so.

I can tell you that after a year. After the entire consultation process, many people told me they had not been consulted. This sort of thing is quite common. I believe what you were saying this morning; you are absolutely right. I am not asking you for an answer this morning, but would like one later on. As we can see that you want to move things ahead perhaps you could tell us what form of communication would be satisfactory to you.

At the present time we have a minister who would like to move things ahead, but it is not clear how he can find the way to communicate with 630 communities. Once again, I am not looking for an answer this morning, but if you have found a way of doing so, we would appreciate knowing about it.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Unfortunately, the question was a long one and we're out of time for that. You can keep that in mind, because unless members object, we have 15 minutes left. Do you wish to hear the answer to that question? Closing remarks for 15 minutes is more than you want, I think.

We'll ask you to respond to the question, and then we'll go from there.

Mr. Robert Hill: Mr. Chair, I think that's perhaps the best question I've heard this morning.

You are quite right. In the freedom of the communities that I represent, it's left entirely up to them whether they want to belong to the nation as a whole, bearing in mind that of course there is strength in numbers.

When we entered into the issue of negotiations with the Province of British Columbia...as you well know, B.C. has not settled the entire issue of treaties throughout the land, with the exception of a very few, and of course, the most noted one being the Nisga'a. They have taken the space of over 26 years of really comprehensive negotiations to do that.

Our community is the Tsimshian. We need time to consult with our nation to come up with even one specific issue that we want to table, and one, of course, is the First Nations Governance Act. We depend entirely on those communities to provide direction for the tribal council to make this presentation. Again, it is by their choice.

Interestingly enough, if you give me 15 minutes to respond...I can respond for about an hour. Nonetheless, for progress, I think our nation, providing they are consulted in a manner that we have described, in meaningful consultation, will be prepared to help the Government of Canada enact these changes. But unless we're consulted in a meaningful manner, then I don't see any way that we can be in the same canoe, paddling in the same direction.

It is certainly interesting to hear from Mr. Hubbard with regard to the east coast and resources, that years ago it was the land of plenty. Our land on the west coast was that; it was the land of plenty. But fortunately or unfortunately, we have abided by the laws of this country with regard to licensing of our resources, and we take great exception to being relegated just to harvest fish for food under subsection 35(1) in the exercise of our aboriginal rights. Your government has not allowed our nation to evolve over time, and it is those issues that we are faced with in court decisions that Corbiere has won.

Simply put, listed in the presentation we had a viable economic base with regard to our sea resources. But now our communities are devoid of those licences, and all they have is the exercise of their aboriginal rights under subsection 35(1). That's clearly an issue.

My closing remarks for the committee this morning would be these. I congratulate you, and I hope at the end of the day your attempt to change the Indian Act will be beneficial to the country, and more importantly to the first nations that I represent and the communities of the Tsimshian.

Again, I have welcomed you to our territory in our traditional manner, and in another language you might learn to wai wah, keep going; try to strive for the best of the best. I've heard that this morning as well. I wish you every success in your endeavours.

I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

¿ (0945)

The Chair: I thank you very much, and I can assure you that the committee takes very seriously the work that has been assigned to us. It is our intention to make it better, and we will only make it better because of people like you and all those who have presented and helped us with information that we can hang onto and develop into better legislation.

But I'll take a second to say there's no one here who believes the Indian Act, amended or not, is a good piece of legislation. It is not.

Mr. Robert Hill: Thank you.

The Chair: We're going to try to keep it alive until we can scrap it.

Mr. Robert Hill: Rightfully so. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Before we hear from the Skeena Native Development Society, because we're ahead of schedule, there are two persons at this point who have asked to make a presentation of two minutes.

We'll start with Roberta Van Doorn, followed by Theresa Wesley. Anyone else who wishes to make a two-minute statement who has not presented or will not be presenting, please register at the table.

Good morning, and welcome.

Ms. Roberta Van Doorn (As Individual): Good morning, Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen.

I'm of the Tsimshian Nation. I have paid taxes all my life. I have no quarrel about that. I have never lived on the reserve, and I have some topics of concern held by most of us off-reserve first nations.

We live under three forms of government for health--federal, provincial, and our band. We have no voice, no power, concerning ourselves in finding funds for further schooling. We speak out, as I did. My daughter, who is going for international business, was turned down, and she was a straight-A student.

The majority of our people live in dire poverty. We never hear anything about the treaties at all--except maybe recently, Metlakatla put an ad in the paper for their band members to have treaty meetings, whereas the rest of our bands never held treaty meetings at all. So I don't know dick-all about the treaty, and that's why we are concerned, because we are left out completely. We have no power. We have no voice. They get the money; we get the discrimination. That's what I grew up with.

Something we need is a voice, without being an outcast to our band or treated differently if we speak out, in voting rights for chiefs on reserve and councils, and so on, and equal treatment for off- and on-reserve first nations. Our inherent right is to live anywhere, so why can't we have a house off the reserve?

I think there should be some changes to Bill C-7, especially on our vote and our voice, that we have some kind of power, because I have heard a lot from the Nisga'as, with their settlement, and a lot of them are not happy at all.

So we need to have a voice, to vote, without fear of being outcast or treated differently, and I--

¿ (0950)

The Chair: You'll have to sum up. We're at three minutes.

Ms. Roberta Van Doorn: Okay.

I'd like to make a comment here. I went to a residential school meeting they had here, and for the first time I heard that certain first nations got $30 million to deal with the abuse we suffered at residential school. God, they gave it to the wrong people. The majority of us never see a cent of that.

We need a voice. I'm a nobody to a lot of people. But a lot of us don't get involved with what's going on because all we think about is that they don't care. They don't care.

The Chair: Thank you very much. I can assure you that for every member around the table, you are a somebody to us.

Ms. Roberta Van Doorn: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you.

I now invite Theresa Wesley--and Theresa, in fairness to you, we'll give you three and a half minutes.

Ms. Theresa Wesley (As Individual): Good morning.

I too am from the Tsimshian Nation, and I'm the first to admit I'm not all that well versed on Bill C-7. However, I kind of understand what it's about.

My comments are going to be a little different in that I like the fact that there are aspects of Bill C-7 that allow our leadership to be accountable, accountable to grassroots people. I too disagree with the way it's being imposed, but if that's the way our leadership is to be held accountable, then so be it.

The previous speaker spoke about the lack of input into not only the treaty process but our own communities. We have little input, especially first nations women and children. Who's looking out for them? I guess my question is, when this governance act gets implemented, who's going to watch out for those on the fringe already, women and children? Who's going to speak for them if rights are violated? Our people barely know their basic human rights.

My concern is the consultation process. There needs to be more information, and the information should not come so much from elected leaders, but different people in the community should be involved more. Those people are the ones who should be dealing with people on the fringes of the communities.

Those are my comments and my concern.

¿ (0955)

The Chair: We thank you very much for them.

We'll proceed to the next presentation. If there is anyone in the room who wishes to make a personal comment for two minutes, register with the table and we'll allow you that time after the next presentation of 30 minutes with the Skeena Native Development Society.

I invite Clarence Nyce, chief executive officer, to make the presentation and to introduce to us your colleagues. You have 30 minutes, and I would hope that you would leave some time for questions.

Mr. Clarence Nyce (Chief Executive Officer, Skeena Native Development Society): Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the standing committee. Welcome to the Pacific northwest, and on behalf of our delegation, I thank you for providing this expanded time on your national agenda.

While you'll find the names and titles of our delegation on the list given to your committee clerk for distribution, I'll take the opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to give a brief introduction of who's here with me.

I'm pleased to introduce a member of the Think Tank on First Nations Wealth Creation, which we'll talk about in great detail later. Mr. Kevin McKay is a former member of the Nisga'a Treaty negotiating team, as well as current Speaker of the House of Parliament for Nisga'a Lisims; and Mr. Greg Smith, Haisla, from Kitamaat, a chartered accountant who has spent most of his career to date in the forest sector. I'm pleased to have him currently as the manager of business development with our company. And we have Mr. Graham Allen, partner in a Vancouver-based law firm, with whom we've had a longstanding relationship. He has 30-plus years of experience--I don't mean to age you, Graham--in various self-government initiatives.

We are here before you representing what we call the Think Tank on First Nations Wealth Creation, which has completed about four years of extensive research on developing free market and sustainable economies. The reasons behind creating this think tank included the following questions. The members of the think tank--there were 14 members, mostly B.C.-based individuals--looked at the following four questions. How and why does poverty exist? Are there common elements of poverty, especially in the second, third, and fourth tiers in the world? How do we move from a state of dependence outside the free market to full participation in Canada's economy? And lastly, what barriers exist that prohibit movement from a controlled economy to a free market economy?

Our presentation is from the specific perspective of creating free market sustainable economies. We firmly believe that the role of governance must include consideration for the creation of wealth and for full participation. I've asked Mr. Graham Allen, our legal counsel, to be our specific spokesperson, with your leave, Mr. Chairman, to address you on our behalf, but we're all here to address any questions later on.

I take this opportunity before I turn the time over to Graham to commend Minister Nault for his insight and vision on this legislation. It's by no means perfect, but what is? It's clearly a major step forward, in our estimation, from the Indian Act.

Thank you.

Graham.

À (1000)

Mr. Graham Allen (As Individual): Thank you, Clarence.

Mr. Chairman, just on a couple of brief points of order before I begin the presentation, I did prepare the outline notes for the presentation. Can I just be sure that all committee members have this two-page document in front of them?

The Chair: Better than that, they will be translated and distributed to all members, even those who couldn't be with us this morning.

Mr. Graham Allen: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The other point is, I realize you're very efficient with the time keeping. I've seen that a few times today. I'm going to try to be self-policing, but how long do I actually have for this presentation?

The Chair: You have 26 minutes left. That includes the questions.

Mr. Graham Allen: All right.

Mr. Chairman, as Clarence Nyce has said, this think tank on first nations wealth creation came together because we had some really fundamental concerns about how to create wealth and prosperity among first nations.

Speaking from my own individual perspective, I have been working with first nations people on all these issues for over 30 years, including Sechelt self-governments, and a large part of that experience, as it is inevitably, has to do with the fact that we put in immense effort, the intentions are always good, the money is spent, and somehow we do not achieve the results one would expect. To be blunt, there's an awful lot of failure going on. I was very inspired to find this group of first nations people, and people like myself who work with first nations people, who had had a similar experience and were trying to grapple with that experience and see whether there is a way to move forward—whether we can do better than this.

Now, we know the Indian Act has a lot to do with this failure, but we certainly don't want to sit around whining about the Indian Act. We've all done that a lot. We were looking for a pathway forward, and we decided the objectives we were seeking were prosperity and cultural well-being—not one, not the other, but hand in hand—for first nations communities. Cultural well-being and prosperity: how do we do that?

We were very fortunate at the outset in enlisting the assistance of Professor Ron Mitchell of the University of Victoria, who is engaged in entrepreneurship studies on a worldwide basis. Professor Mitchell actually works at the University of Beijing regularly, and in Russia, and he advises these former communist governments—I should be careful of what I say about mainland China; I would just say “governments”—engaged in the transformation from command economies into market economies. He's providing advice on this very broad basis. When he was talking to my friend Clarence Nyce about this work, Clarence had the insight: “This is the situation we're in on our reserves in the Pacific northwest. We live under a command economy—the Indian Act economy. We want to transform this to a market economy. Can you help us?”

Professor Mitchell has provided the intellectual foundation, the theories for our work. Our work is intellectually grounded in a rather esoteric theory called transaction cognition theory. If you had two hours, I would explain it to you with the aid of a crib sheet. But it's very well considered, and an immense amount of work has been done at the University of Victoria that is international in its implications for this type of thinking, cognition thinking.

We took that and used it as the basis for our own practical experience of what had taken place. But we didn't just stop there, Mr. Chairman. We also went to the writings of Professor Stephen Cornell and Joseph Kalt, and I was very interested to hear my friend Gerry Wesley mention Professor Cornell this morning. He's obviously familiar to all of us at this point. These gentlemen with the Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development, which has been ongoing since 1986—this is a long process of review and analysis—have themselves determined what it would take to create the environment in which, for them, American Indian economic prosperity could be achieved. It's interesting to note that they have said very clearly that native self-rule is the absolute prerequisite for creating a prosperous native economy: native self-rule.

We obviously agree with that, but we call it being masters in our own house. That's our expression for pretty well the same thing. We also found very helpful the writings of Mr. Hernando de Soto. I don't know how familiar that work is to all the committee members, but he is a Peruvian economist. He was confronting the mystery of why the west is so prosperous when so much of the rest of the world is not, and he analysed nations such as Egypt and the Philippines to see why there was so much poverty.

À (1005)

He found out that the poverty was just a matter of measurement. In fact, a lot of the people there who are just written off as being impoverished have capital. They have homes, land, and businesses, but they're all outside the legal mainstream. They cannot be transacted. They cannot be accessed for financing or for collateral. He called it dead capital. When we heard of dead capital we immediately thought of Indian reserves because that expression really characterizes reserves very accurately.

Native people do have assets. They have valuable land and resources, but they are dead because with the various legal restrictions they are unable to fully utilize their capital. It sits there inert and incapable of productive use.

We were very fortunate, by the way. Mr. de Soto came to Vancouver on his world travels and we went to his seminar. We were actually able to speak with him and tell him about Indian reserves in British Columbia. He was quite fascinated by the idea that this situation was taking place in a first world country, with very many of the symptoms he was analyzing.

We have been at this now for over three years, meeting regularly and trying to determine the pathway to prosperity and cultural well-being. We're not trying to create the market itself. We are saying what is needed is the governance system, the institutions, that would create the environment in which prosperity could be created and could flourish.

We want to be masters in our own house, have native self-rule, whatever you want to call that. We see that as fundamental, and this is where Bill C-7 does come in. There's a real connection to this legislation and what we're proposing.

These are the ingredients for being masters in our own house. The first nation needs to be in control of its own lands. Second, the governance of a first nation community has to be accountable and transparent. That's a very familiar expression to you, Mr. Chairman, and to the members.

Third, there has to be implementation of the entrepreneurial model as it bears upon the transformation of the on-reserve command economy. That's quite a mouthful, but we're talking about the transaction cognition theory that says, “Here is a command economy. What will it take to create a market economy?”

The fourth part is the creation of the institutions that allow those objectives to be executed successfully in harmony with native culture and tradition. Professor Cornell called that cultural match. We can't come up with a better expression than that. That's exactly what it has to be. We are not going to be able to find a comprehensive way of dealing with all first nation communities. We have to acknowledge the absolute crucial importance of cultural match and recognize those individual requirements for each community. So it has to be harmonious with that.

Finally, we need to look at the development of a strategic plan for each first nation community. The community has to decide itself where it's going and how it wants to get there. It needs the legal mechanism to be able to achieve its own objectives.

That was a huge agenda for us, and at various points we thought it was rather quixotic. It was going to be almost impossible to achieve. We were just going to sit around deciding we had a lot of good theories, but how to implement them would be difficult.

But it's not as difficult as we thought it might be. First, when we look at what is already available we find the First Nations Land Management Act in place and doing extremely well. We don't often commend the federal government on its legislation, but this statute is working very well indeed. There are many first nations trying to be accepted under the Land Management Act.

À (1010)

We are not saying this is what we see as the ultimate objective. We are very strongly of the view that first nations should own their own land. But the Land Management Act is a very effective move away from the Indian Act toward first nations mastery of its own situation. So yes, that does help a great deal on the path toward full mastery.

What is already available? Well, we see the prospects of Bill C-7 becoming law as being very much a positive for what we're trying to do, because we will then see brought into law the means for enhanced accountability and transparency of first nations governments.

This is exactly the kind of thing we're looking at, the ability to create stable institutions under a very focused body of law that is making the requirements very clear. And if I may add, it is building on the kind of pattern that the Land Management Act established. It is saying, “Here is the legislative framework. Now, first nations, develop your code. You have to include these things, but you can develop your own code as long as these things are actually addressed.” We find that a constructive way of achieving cultural match at that level.

So that is there with its three codes. As well, the Land Management Act is already there with the land code--there are five in existence in Canada at the moment--and we certainly hope to see a lot more building in the coming years.

Finally, of course, any first nation community can develop its own strategic plan at any time, so that ability is there. What is lacking, obviously, is the legal means to bring that plan into fruition.

Looking at all of that, we have to ask ourselves what is missing here. Is there something missing, and what is it? We look ahead to a first nation that is functioning under the Land Management Act, that has its three codes under this native governance act in place, that has a community-based strategic plan in place saying where the community wants to take itself. All of that is a given. Is that enough to create the economy, to create the environment in which a prosperous economy can be developed? I put the question because we do recall that Mr. Nault, at the very outset of this process, did say he wanted to see modern economies develop for first nations people. That was one of his targets for this legislation. We think it does go a long way. It allows laws, for instance, to deal with business institutions, to deal with conditions for commercial transactions. There is a lot of recognition already in Bill C-7 for the creation of modern economies.

However, we say more is needed because once a first nation has reached that point, we do not think in our analysis, based on Mitchell, Cornell, Kalt, and Hernando de Soto, there will be enough to rise to the level of creating prosperity and cultural well-being. We are therefore proposing the addition to Bill C-7 of a fourth code, and we're calling it the prosperity code.

We're suggesting that not every first nation can access that immediately. We think there should be prerequisites to being able to adopt it. The First Nations Land Management Act should be a prerequisite, having a community-based, long-term strategic plan should be a prerequisite, and perhaps being under the other three codes should be a prerequisite. We haven't fully considered the implications of that.

Once all of that is in place, we would like to offer a first nation the opportunity to adopt a prosperity code that would then embrace these policies that would take them towards prosperity, that would include the types of things Professor Cornell identified in his long study of American Indian reservations as being essential for economies. These are things like stable institutions, fair and effective dispute resolution, separation of politics from business management--that's a very critical one, very sensitive--a competent bureaucracy, and of course cultural match.

These are components that Professors Cornell and Kalt said were essential, and in our own experience and analysis we are able to concur completely in that.

À (1015)

We have provided to the committee, Mr. Chairman, our rationale for a prosperity code, explaining why intellectually we think it's needed--the theory for it all. We've taken the liberty of preparing a model prosperity code so that the committee can see what a code might look like. I hasten to add that this is not being suggested as any kind of template for anybody. We're just giving an illustration of what one might look like. We have provided all of this in the hope that even at this late stage, bearing in mind Mr. Nault's opening intentions for this legislation, the committee might be able to consider the provision for a fourth code--a prosperity code--that would allow this bill to be a genuine vehicle for allowing first nations to proceed towards the environment in which prosperity and cultural well-being could indeed be achieved.

That's our presentation. We're available for questions. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We have nine minutes for questions. How do we do this? Three minutes each, with a question and the answer.

Mr. Graham Allen: Mr. Chair, we're all open for questions.

The Chair: That's right. Each party will have three minutes, that's for the question and the answer, so when we run out of time, unfortunately, it's our guests who get cut off.

Short questions, please, guys.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I have a question to all of you--Clarence, Kevin, Greg, and Graham. Where communalism is supposedly cherished in a greater way among first nations people across our country, trying to go from command economy to market.... No doubt you looked at that--it's probably in these documents--individual ownership, certificates of possession, as Six Nations and other successful first nations are doing in the country. Is it not inevitable that you need to work in some aspects of individual ownership, however you want to call it, or some modification of that to get this transformation from command to market ones, but also weighing in the concern of not losing the land base? That is always mentioned. If you get into individual ownership, you might lose your land base as a first nation. I would ask that question quickly.

Mr. Graham Allen: Thank you.

This is a question with which we wrestled very much in our early days, because we were very cognizant of the large body of theory that individual property rights were a key to creating prosperity.

Having analyzed it for a long time, we decided in the end that cultural match is the overriding principle. We're very aware that some native communities are indeed building their economies on individual ownership, and West Bank of course is a very strong example of that. Others such as Sechelt, with its self-government, have adhered entirely to the communal land ownership principle, and I've represented both first nations, so I've been involved with that.

In the end, it does come down to the choice of each first nations community, and that's what we think is essential. We don't have to express a preference. A first nation has to decide whether it wishes to have a communal ownership system or allow some level of individual ownership. Yes, you are correct. With full mastery, and if there is an individual ownership system, there is going to be risk attached to that, and we understand that--prosperity and entering the market economy will entail risk. What we're saying is each first nation will have to determine for itself the level of risk with which it is comfortable.

À (1020)

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I'm interested then in the body of knowledge out there, Graham. Is it six of one and half a dozen of the other? You can have a successful economy whether it's the communal or the other. This is my question. Is it an indifferent issue? It is whatever people choose and it can be done either way.

The Chair: In 20 seconds.

Mr. Graham Allen: You will be familiar with the writings of Professor Thomas Flanagan. He came out with his first book, First Nations? Second Thoughts, saying that individual property rights were absolutely essential. They were not available. He has revised his position quite significantly, I would say, in the last year. He's now written a new pamphlet saying that individual property rights are in fact available on reserve already, which is exactly our own thesis.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: I wish I had more time, because much of what you're saying makes me quite nervous and I'd like to be able to explore it with you after the fact.

One thing is you enthusiastically endorsed Bill C-7, and that will be used, I'm sure, by the ruling party. You'll be clipped and quoted heavily when the reports come out. But there's one thing from an entrepreneurial point of view that should make you nervous about Bill C-7, and I'd like you to comment on it. Bill C-7 would require first nations to report all financial matters, including own source revenue, private sector funding, economic activity, to anyone at any time, including your direct competition if you were involved in an entrepreneurial enterprise. You'd be held to a much higher standard than any business or any corporation would anywhere, because your direct competition would be able to say, “Show me your books”, at any time. How do you feel about that aspect from a market economy point of view?

Mr. Graham Allen: Well, it really goes to the basis upon which we're here, and we're not here to enthusiastically endorse all of Bill C-7. We made it very clear at the outset that we view it as not perfect but certainly as being a major advance from the failed institutions of the Indian Act. From that point of view, we do consider it an advance.

In terms of the specifics, as a think tank on first nations wealth creation, we're not engaged in analyzing each provision of Bill C-7.

Mr. Pat Martin: Well, this is one provision that will have a direct impact on your undertaking. You certainly should be aware before you're going to be quoted as saying very enthusiastic things about Bill C-7. I would hope you would have looked at it in more detail before you left that impression for the permanent record.

Mr. Graham Allen: Well, as I said, we said at the outset it's not perfect, and that's in the speech notes and we're not moving from that. We as a group are not here to analyze each part of Bill C-7. We represent many people.

How many, Clarence?

Mr. Clarence Nyce: Fourteen.

Mr. Graham Allen: Fourteen thousand.

Mr. Clarence Nyce: Oh no, no. I thought you meant the think tank. About 30,000.

Mr. Graham Allen: There are about 30,000 people represented by the Skeena Native Development Society, and we are certainly not presuming to speak for the many different views those 30,000 people would have about the kind of issue you are speaking of.

I just wish to focus on the fact that we are here as a think tank. We're dealing with one issue, and we are coming to you asking if there is a possibility that this bill could be opened up to provide for a fourth code. We're not here with 30,000 people represented to say this is what 30,000 people think of each particular detail of this bill.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

You will have an opportunity to make three-minute closing remarks.

Monsieur Binet, trois minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. Binet, go ahead.

Mr. Gérard Binet: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to congratulate you on your presentation, Mr. Allan. I really liked the way you spoke. You did not simply mention figures and economic matters, you also talked about philosophy and vision, and this is important because you represent communities that normally have several different visions. How do you and your group go about presenting your plans and your visions to these communities?

À (1025)

[English]

Mr. Clarence Nyce: We're in the process of publishing the reporting of the results of the research findings over the last four years. The book will become available by the end of March. That's one medium. Of course, through this very timely process, we were wanting to at least present the broader findings of our research to this committee.

That's as far as we've gone in terms of how we are going to “spread the word”. Of course, we have access to technology, which we're using as well.

[Translation]

Mr. Gérard Binet: Thank you, and once again I congratulate you.

Le président: Thank you, Mr. Binet.

[English]

We invite you to make closing remarks for three minutes.

Mr. Clarence Nyce: With regard to the research findings over the last little while, it has to be noted that the presentation today is one small segment of the bigger concept of governance. Clearly, we're coming from the perspective of wealth creation. That's totally where we're coming from and only where we're coming from. We're not so presumptive as to assume that we're going to delve into the broader issues that my friend Mr. Wesley and Professor Hill spoke to you about earlier. Our perspective is but one perspective.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and the committee members for taking the time to hear this.

The Chair: We thank you very much. It puts a new dimension on the work we have to do. It wasn't complicated enough before. It is now. I see a lot of benefit in the presentation you made.

Mr. Clarence Nyce: Thank you.

The Chair: Are there any individuals in the room?

Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Chair, I have a point of order. The first brief we heard today was from Mary Dalen. It has been brought to my attention that many people worked on that brief, who actually got up at 3 a.m. in order to leave home at 4 and be here for 8, and they feel very strongly that they didn't have adequate time to make their point. I understand fully that the rules are the rules everywhere we go and that we only allow 10 minutes for individuals. But I'm not sure it was made clear that Mary Dalen is with an organization called Native Women CARE Society. I'm asking for special dispensation, seeing that we have time--

The Chair: I'll save a lot of time, because we don't have a lot of time. I'm willing. Would you like to give them another seven minutes? Is that fair enough?

Mr. Pat Martin: I think it would be fair to give her an opportunity to make some of the points she wasn't able to make.

The Chair: We invite Mary Dalen to the table again for seven minutes. Please come forward immediately. Go ahead, Mary.

Mrs. Mary Dalen: I don't know where to begin. I was cut off so fast.

The Chair: Would you like to have more time?

À (1030)

Mrs. Mary Dalen: Not specifically.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Are there different issues that you wish to address, that you didn't get through?

The Chair: Maybe just highlight and draw attention to the points you want us to really dwell on. But the time is running and....

Mrs. Mary Dalen: Okay.

The Chair: What is your conclusion?

Mrs. Mary Dalen: There are other objectives from the fact sheet, matters raised in consultation in the communities. You'll find this in the fact sheet.

What matters to us is being left out of benefits provided for Indian people under the Indian Act, lands inherited and property rights dating back over a hundred years. During the 1950s, at the arrival of missionaries and Indian agents, people who belonged to a band of their own were amalgamated with other bands but did not leave their place of birth.

This is the subject we will continue to try to create a dialogue on with Indian Affairs, as this issue, which we have worked on for years, is not going to go away. We are used to making money for bands and Indian Affairs on a per capita basis.

The Minister of Natural Resources is waiting in the wings for anything implemented for Indian people. We have lived this long without treaties. Why make treaties now?

Indian Affairs today should be creating a system for people who want to be free of the Indian Act and working toward having the people be Canadian citizens, with an outright settlement of lands they inherited, to be negotiated individually. If we are to be kept as wards of the government, then we want to see our benefits for both on- and off-reserve--especially off-reserve--band members.

Other bills such as Bill C-19 and Bill C-6 need to be slowed down in the debate in the House of Commons. They need to be further studied. There seems to be a rush to create more offices for first nations only. This will create much concern, as it has already, to the taxpayers.

My last page was important, and I wanted to stress that you forgot to take out subsection 89(1). It's going to overrule the section on search and seizure. Search and seizure on reserves is too broad.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Would there be a possibility of asking you questions, quickly?

The Chair: Would you like to use a few of your minutes for members to ask you questions?

Okay, we'll allow you that. We'll have two minutes per party, and after that, that's it. The reason we're able to deviate from the agenda is because we had time this morning and we couldn't make it up because we have to go by ferry. We're landlocked.

Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: You have a page in here, Mary, and it's with respect to complaints and redress. My question is, are you in favour of something of an ombudsman role--whether on a tribal council, regional, or national level--such that people can have an appeal? It can be done within first nations themselves, but have some kind of ombudsman off the local reserve?

À (1035)

Mrs. Mary Dalen: If it's off reserve and it isn't just another job created...an ombudsman who would do something and not just work from 9 to 5 and then go home.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: There would be some independence and protection from the local chief and council there, but some powers of investigation and some real teeth, in terms of enforcement and so on. You could work it out at a tribal, regional, or national council level, but that would take it outside the local area. There would be some independence from the local chief and council.

Mrs. Mary Dalen: I'm not in favour of an ombudsman at all. It's just another job creation.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: What opportunity for redress or appeal would you have then?

Mrs. Mary Dalen: We have the Minister of Indian Affairs and all his staff.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Is that enough?

Mrs. Mary Dalen: If they would just do something with people's letters and concerns.... Some of them are really....

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: He's a busy man. His hands are tied if he doesn't have full power or whatever to pursue some of this stuff. That's why some have suggested the ombudsman possibility.

Thank you for your time.

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

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for making this opportunity for Mary to finish her remarks.

You mentioned the other two bills that form part of this.

Would you like a minute to consult, or are you okay?

A witness: I was just explaining to her what an ombudsman was.

Mrs. Mary Dalen: I know what an ombudsman is, but my view is probably different from others. She wants an ombudsman off reserve.

Mr. Pat Martin: Maybe I'll ask the same question. Do you think it would be valuable to have a new series of ombudsmen set up at arm's length from the first nations so people could file their complaints through an ombudsman? Do you think that would be good practice?

Mrs. Mary Dalen: It would be.

Mr. Pat Martin: That's one aspect of the bill you think would be helpful.

Mrs. Mary Dalen: Yes.

The Chair: I thank everyone for their contribution. You have a beautiful city. It's no wonder everybody's smiling here. You're happy people, you're good people, and we certainly appreciated being here with you.

We will be moving on to Prince George and we will resume proceedings there.

The meeting is adjourned.