AANR Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, February 20, 2003

¸

1415

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

Chief Sophie Pierre (Ktunaxa/Kinbasket Tribal Council)

Ms. Kathryn Teneese (As Individual)

¸

1420

Chief Sophie Pierre

¸

1425

The Chair

Chief Sophie Pierre

The Chair

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

¸

1430

Chief Sophie Pierre

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief Sophie Pierre

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief Sophie Pierre

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief Sophie Pierre

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief Sophie Pierre

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief Sophie Pierre

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

¸

1435

Chief Sophie Pierre

Mr. Pat Martin

Chief Sophie Pierre

Mr. Pat Martin

Chief Sophie Pierre

Mr. Pat Martin

Chief Sophie Pierre

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Kathryn Teneese

The Chair

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

¸

1440

Chief Sophie Pierre

Mr. Gérard Binet

Chief Sophie Pierre

Mr. Gérard Binet

The Chair

Chief Sophie Pierre

¸

1445

Ms. Kathryn Teneese

¸

1450

The Chair

Chief Sophie Pierre

The Chair

Chief Sophie Pierre

The Chair

Chief Willie Alphonse, Jr. (Williams Lake Indian Band, Cariboo Tribal Council)

¸

1455

Chief Hank Adams (As Individual)

¹

1500

¹

1505

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief Willie Alphonse, Jr.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief Willie Alphonse, Jr.

Chief Hank Adams

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief Hank Adams

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Robert L.T. Philips (As Individual)

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Robert L.T. Philips

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Robert L.T. Philips

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Robert L.T. Philips

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief Dorothy Philips (As Individual)

¹

1510

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Robert L.T. Philips

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

¹

1515

Mr. Charles Hubbard

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. George Girouard (As Individual)

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

¹

1520

Mr. Gérard Binet

The Chair

¹

1525

Mr. George Girouard

The Chair

Mr. Robert L.T. Philips

The Chair

Chief Willie Alphonse, Jr.

The Chair

Chief Hank Adams

¹

1530

The Chair

Chief Dorothy Philips

The Chair

¹

1535

Mr. Robert L.T. Philips

The Chair

Mr. George Girouard

The Chair

M. Ted Morris (As Individual)

¹

1540

The Chair

Mr. Andrew Casimel (As Individual)

The Chair

Mr. Ken Edzerza (As Individual)

¹

1545

The Chair

Mr. Harold Prince (As Individual)

¹

1550

The Chair

Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources

---

NUMBER 034

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Thursday, February 20, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¸  (1415)  

[English]

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

    We will resume proceedings 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 Chief Sophie Pierre from Ktunaxa Kinbasket Tribal Council. We invite you to make your presentation and to introduce your colleague. We have 45 minutes together.

    We're ready to go.

    Chief Sophie Pierre (Ktunaxa/Kinbasket Tribal Council): Thank you very much.

    Good afternoon, everyone. I want to introduce Kathryn Teneese, the chief negotiator for our treaty table. She is with the Ktunaxa Kinbasket Tribal Council.

    I want to thank you for giving us the opportunity to make this presentation to you. I know that it helps both of us that we were here early and able to start right away.

    We do have a written presentation, and we have brought enough copies for you. However, it is only in English, so I know that we can't distribute it.

    Our presentation will be in two parts. Kathryn Teneese will speak first, on the treaty process and why we're involved in that, and then I will speak to a section of Bill C-7 that is of particular interest to us and that I feel is going to be very helpful to first nations involved in any type of land development. So that's the way we will do our presentation.

    I'll ask Kathryn to start.

    Ms. Kathryn Teneese (As Individual): Good afternoon. I'll just start by saying that we welcome the opportunity to appear before the standing committee to present our views on Bill C-7, the proposed First Nations Governance Act.

    This proposal to amend the Indian Act and other acts will affect how we as a first nation carry out our day-to-day business and our ability to move towards our objectives of self-reliance and the exercise of the inherent right of self-government. We've had the benefit of reviewing a number of other submissions prepared by first nations and first nations organizations, including the presentations prepared by the First Nations Summit, the B.C. AFN, and the Northwest Tribal Treaty group. You will note that we've adopted some of their recommendations in our document.

    Just as a little bit of background, the Ktunaxa Kinbasket Tribal Council consists of five bands of the Ktunaxa Nation--Columbia Lake, Lower Kootenay, St. Mary's, Shuswap, and Tobacco Plains, situated in the southeastern part of B.C. known as the Kootenay region.

    I know you've already heard some background on the B.C. treaty process, but I'd like to give you some background on our involvement in it. The B.C. Treaty Commission, part of the 19 recommendations of the B.C. claims task force, was established in 1992. It opened its doors in 1993, and we filed our statement of intent in December of 1993. Our negotiations have progressed to stage four, known as “agreement in principle” negotiations, of the six-stage process.

    As we began with treaty negotiations, it was anticipated that negotiated modern-day treaties would form the basis of a new relationship between Canada and first nations that recognizes the unique place of first nations in British Columbia. The new relationship calls for recognition of, and respect for, first nations as self-determining and distinct nations with our own spiritual values, histories, languages, territories, political institutions, and ways of life.

    For the last decade, the KKTC, both independently and as part of the first nations collective known as the First Nations Summit, has repeatedly advanced the themes of reconciliation, good faith, accommodation, respect, and recognition as the cornerstones of our new relationship and the basis for finding fair and workable solutions. It's frustrating for us that, in the midst of our concerted efforts to advance the treaty negotiation process, so much of the federal government's energy is put on an initiative to rework portions of the Indian Act, which we hope to be rid of in the future.

    Our experience in treaty negotiations has taught us that while certain initiatives are said to be without prejudice to our treaty negotiations, new government initiatives often establish bottom lines that government negotiators bring to the treaty negotiation table. As a result, the treaty negotiation process often appears designed to force us to entrench the status quo. This repackaging of current government programs and policies for treaty negotiations is contrary to the commitment to establish a new relationship.

    From the start, it was envisioned that the treaty negotiations would include matters relating to lands and resources as well as governance. In this regard, the B.C. claims task force noted that, “First nations government, often referred to as self-government, will be an essential component of the new relationship.” In our case, the issue of governance has always been an important element of our treaty negotiations and is expected to be included in our final treaty.

    First nations have pre-existing inherent rights, responsibility, and authority to govern our territories and to exercise authority over our citizens wherever they are. This inherent right of self-government exists and is protected under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. In particular, the right to choose our own form of leadership and governance regime is an aboriginal right.

    The inherent right of self-government exists quite independently of any recognition by the federal and provincial governments and is not contingent on the success of negotiations between first nations and other governments. Nevertheless, the recognition of the inherent right could facilitate a process of reconciliation between first nations and the federal and provincial governments.

    Specifically on Bill C-7, first nations have long awaited the opportunity to rid themselves of the shackles imposed on them by the Indian Act and to move forward to the implementation of their inherent right of self-government. We understand that the federal government's stated intent with respect to this initiative is not to address first nations inherent right of self-government. Rather, the intent is to provide an interim step towards self-government that will provide first nations operating under the Indian Act with the tools they need to foster good government and achieve sustainable growth.

¸  (1420)  

    To this end, the federal government provided assurance that these Indian Act amendments would enable first nations to engage more effectively in self-government negotiations and in viable, sustainable, and long-term economic development.

    We support certain of the key underpinnings of this initiative, including the following: aboriginal and treaty rights, including the inherent right of self-government, must not be infringed, derogated from, or abrogated; the fiduciary relationship between first nations and the Crown must not be altered; and first nations must have the opportunity to move forward with the implementation of their inherent right of self-government.

    Having lived under the Indian Act for all of our lives, we support the elements of the FNGA that make it easier for first nations to move from the Indian Act to the full exercise of the inherent right of self-government and to soundly manage our affairs in the interim. An illustration of one such element will be referred to by Chief Pierre in her comments.

    I'll go over some of the key concerns we have with the bill. First, a substantive provision should be included in the body of the statute, rather than in the preamble, that makes it clear that neither the Indian Act nor the First Nations Governance Act are intended to define the nature and scope of the right of self-government or to prejudge the outcome of any self-government negotiation.

    Second, a clear and effective non-derogation clause is an absolute requirement for the statute to ensure that the stated purpose of not infringing our aboriginal and treaty rights is upheld. We support the inclusion of the non-derogation clause commonly used in federal legislation between 1985 and 1996, which stated:

For greater certainty, nothing in this Act shall be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any existing aboriginal or treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

    The third concern we have is the need for first nations to secure the necessary financial and human resources to meet the requirements of Bill C-7. This must be factored into the implementation plan for the statute. Considerable resources will be required to analyze, develop, and implement the three codes and the other requirements of the bill. We believe it is absolutely essential that the federal government provide sufficient funding to cover these costs and to support the necessary capacity-building required to implement this bill.

    If first nations do not receive the necessary funding to carry out these activities, this governance initiative will be another example of an imposition on first nations to be absorbed into our budgets, which are already stretched to the absolute limit. This will inevitably result in cuts to services to first nations people, and this surely was not the government's intention.

    Those are my comments. I will now turn the floor over to Chief Pierre.

    Chief Sophie Pierre: Thank you.

    I want to underscore that the Ktunaxa Kinbasket Tribal Council is involved in the treaty process, and one of our main purposes for being there is that we want to be a self-governing nation. We see the Indian Act as a very interim step for us.

    We are involved in some developments, some rather extensive developments, on lands that we hold in common. Five Indian bands hold one reserve in common. We have found that the present Indian Act does not address that. The changes that are recommended in Bill C-7 do talk about how Indian bands can come together and can delegate their authority, their bylaw-making authority in particular, to another party.

    If that provision were available to us now, we would see that as being most helpful. We have had to find some incredibly inventive ways to come together as five bands and to put together the development that we call the St. Eugene Mission Resort Development. It's a $40-million resort development and it has taken us 10 years to do it. The restrictions of the Indian Act have been a large part of why it's taken so long.

    The Indian Act was never meant to be a piece of legislation that would enable first nations to actually get into business. When the Indian Act was enacted back in the 1800s, the intent was that Indians wouldn't exist in a few years, so why would they be putting these laws into place to help them get into business?

    So we do see that there are sections of change in Bill C-7 that would help. In particular--and I do explain this in the rest of the presentation--there are particular sections that refer to sections 81 and 83, to bylaw-making powers as being transferable to a separate body. The Indian bands, when they come together as five bands trying to do some business, can then appoint one band to do that business for them.

    Right now the way the Indian Act is drafted, each of our five bands has to come up with five separate bylaws. We work well together, and we're in business together, so we're obviously going to do all the same bylaws to advance the business, but it would make it very difficult if one band wanted to go its own way. It would make it very difficult for any group to be able to get ahead and to be able to do business in common, when they hold lands in common.

    Our agenda here is to pursue treaty for the purposes of self-government, but the reality is that it's going to take us a while. In the meantime we are subject to the Indian Act, and we feel that the Indian Act right now does infringe on the right to self-government. Obviously, then, any changes to the Indian Act are also going to infringe.

    It is our intended agenda to get out from the Indian Act at the end of the day, but we do recognize that in the meantime there are some things in here that will assist. We want to bring your attention to that particular part of the FNGA that refers specifically to Indian bands as a collective wanting to do business on reserve lands that they hold in common.

    We wanted to speak to this because this is not common with Indian reserves across Canada. You won't find very many situations such as ours, where a number of bands hold the same land together in common. We have chosen to develop this. And I hope that some day--I have to put in a plug for our resort--you'll have an opportunity to visit us.

    Thank you very much.

¸  (1425)  

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Before I go to questions from members, if the five bands owned their respective properties, would that prevent agreements on bylaw creation, or business, or...?

    Chief Sophie Pierre: Yes. That's the way it is now. Each of these bands has their own respective Indian reserve for which they can create bylaws, but we also together hold in common the lands around the St. Eugene Mission. There's no provision presently in the Indian Act for us to delegate our authority to another body to hold or to have the bylaw-making power for that particular piece of property that we hold in common.

    The Chair: Fantastic. Thank you very much.

    Five minutes, Mr. Vellacott.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Chief Sophie and Kathryn, for being here.

    You seem to be very reasonable in your presentation here. You have some basic and I think very fundamental and important key concerns, the three that you list there, but you also affirm that there are some good and positive things in the interim, as a transitional measure, for Bill C-7.

    So I thank you for that. As I said, you don't seem at all over-demanding or unreasonable. I think you understand this is a temporary, interim thing.

    I guess I would ask, in a couple of areas, as you look over Bill C-7...and this is maybe coming more from people within your band. As a leader, I'm sure you want to be listening to those folks, and no doubt you already have. They may have raised some issues already.

    In the bill there seems to be fairly broad policing powers presently, the search and seizure and so on. Have you looked at those aspects of it? Does it leave you a little nervous in terms of the broad sweep and seizure powers you seem to have by way of Bill C-7? Have you looked at that aspect of it? If not, that's okay, you can just pass on it.

¸  (1430)  

    Chief Sophie Pierre: My immediate reaction would be that the way we govern our community now would not be different from what is being considered within Bill C-7. We have a community where, first and foremost, the safety of each and every individual is our mandate. So I don't have a particular problem with that.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: So you would maybe modify it a bit. Because it looks as though some would be concerned about the powers that are granted, that it's beyond what in any other jurisdiction seems to be the case, that they could be easily abused.

    Chief Sophie Pierre: Really, if you look at it, for Indian reserves and the way that the Indian Act is now, many of the responsibilities are a lot different from what you would have in a municipality, for example. A mayor does not have the same responsibilities that I have as a chief of my community. A mayor has no responsibilities in terms of education or child and family services or housing. I do.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Yes, but even then, you want to protect yourself, almost as a safeguard for you. You don't want to be walking in without warrant and moving in on people, on their homes, on the house and so on that you've allocated to them. You don't want to have that, I wouldn't think. I mean, you need to be able to take care of things there, but--

    Chief Sophie Pierre: The best way to exercise, and the most effective, power--I don't really see it as power, but it's the best way I can describe it--is what you receive from your people. When you're elected as a chief, you're given certain responsibilities and certain authority, but that comes directly from the people.

    It's a little bit troubling when these things start to be written down, because then it undermines the authority of the community to decide as a community how they're going to be policing themselves.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Right.

    So you don't have major concerns other than the cost and the time, that you're under the gun in terms of getting it together in pretty quick time, but even a little more than what appears to meet the eye here, that you have to put this together. Do you feel that's feasible for you to do as, I think you said, five bands together?

    Chief Sophie Pierre: Are you referring in particular to the codes and things that have to be put into place?

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Yes, writing up the codes and so on.

    Chief Sophie Pierre: As we said in our presentation, and as Kathryn referred to, what we're really frustrated about is that this is not really on our agenda. So now we're going to have to set aside things that we are doing, things that are important to us, and turn our minds towards getting these codes and things in place. However, within our bands, it probably isn't such a concern for us because many of those things are already in place. We have been operating under our own band custom bylaw elections, which meet every single requirement. We've been operating that way since 1978.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: So you're anticipating that you might be able to insert or shoehorn those right into Bill C-7?

    Chief Sophie Pierre: Exactly. Yes. I don't see that our five bands in particular are going to have a great deal of difficulty with this. Now, I know that's not the same situation throughout the rest of the province or, for that matter, throughout the rest of the country. But just for our five bands, because of the way our tribal council operates and the responsibilities that we've already taken upon ourselves for many years, I don't see that this is going to be a real problem for us.

    It does really irk me that we have to go off our own agenda and onto the federal government's agenda of putting all of this stuff in place simply to meet the federal government's requirements because they perceive some problems with accountability and transparency.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Mr. Martin, five minutes.

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

    Thank you, Chief Pierre, for that last point. I think that's where I'll start from.

    Many first nations that we've heard from are equally frustrated that these are not the issues they really wanted to deal with in the year 2003, or at this stage in their negotiations towards true self-governance. What we hear from government is that we went out there and had broad consultations, and we heard from the people, and these are what the people wanted. Therefore, here we have this bill now, Bill C-7.

    Would you say that you had broad consultation, and did you have an adequate opportunity to say what you would like to see in terms of changes to the Indian Act?

¸  (1435)  

    Chief Sophie Pierre: It's ironic, because when we had an opportunity to speak to the group when they came out to our area--and we don't consider it consultation--we told them the same thing. We told them, we're involved in the treaty process; that's where our focus is, and that's where we want to go. The Indian Act is the Indian Act is the Indian Act. I don't care how many times you change it, it's still the Indian Act, and it's something that we want to set aside. We have our own road to go here.

    Mr. Pat Martin: That seems to be a message we've heard over and over again.

    I guess the one thing that you'll find useful in Bill C-7 is, as you said, dealing with the delegation of authority to a central agency or a central body. That could be helpful. But there's another aspect, seeing as you're getting involved in a business entrepreneurial venture with your resort. Were you aware that in Bill C-7 you'll be held to much higher standards of accountability? For instance, you would have to make known to anyone who asks, not just to the members of your band, all the details of your business, including financial statements, etc.

    Now, from a competition point of view in the free market, running a business, why would it be my business to come and demand to see your books?

    Chief Sophie Pierre: That's right. Yes, exactly. It is not, and I would say that clearly there are some areas...

    Well, it's the whole federal government agenda of continuing to treat us like children, and that's why we say that all we're interested in is the very limited time of staying under the Indian Act, because we're interested in having our own self-governance act.

    But yes, clearly that's a real problem, and there are many of us across the country now who are in business. So I think that particular part of the act will be challenged very quickly.

    Mr. Pat Martin: Finally, we had a very comprehensive brief from the B.C. vice-chief, Herb George Satsan, and they've sort of resigned themselves to the fact that they're probably not going to be able to stop Bill C-7 even though that was their first choice. Therefore, they put together a really comprehensive set of amendments that would do away with virtually all of the irritants that you talked about--for example, putting in a non-derogation clause, dealing with that issue I just raised.

    If the amendments as put forward by the B.C. AFN passed, would you then be able to support Bill C-7, with all these amendments?

    Chief Sophie Pierre: I'm not sure I'm aware of all of the amendments from the AFN, but I would have a pretty good idea of what they would be. They'd be the types of things that Kathryn had referred to.

    I guess it doesn't really change our basic point, which is that the Indian Act is not on our agenda. That's not really where we're going.

    Mr. Pat Martin: So rather than tinkering with something that's flawed, you'd put your energy and your time into economic development issues in your area.

    Chief Sophie Pierre: Absolutely. That's clearly the message that Kathryn and I are trying to get across here.

    Mr. Pat Martin: Would you like to add to that, if we have any time left?

    Ms. Kathryn Teneese: I just wanted to say that for those of us involved with treaty negotiations, 80% of the funding is available to us by way of loans, so we're very concerned that we're presented with something that is under an existing regime and we're borrowing money to talk about that. We don't have to borrow money to talk about the status quo.

[Translation]

    The Chair: Mr. Binet, you have five minutes.

    Mr. Gérard Binet (Frontenac—Mégantic, Lib.): Good afternoon. I am a member of Parliament from Quebec, and there are no first nations communities in my riding.

    I really enjoyed your presentation. Are there a number of women chiefs in the 630 communities?

¸  (1440)  

[English]

    Chief Sophie Pierre: I think there are more now than in the past, but I really don't know the number. So I can't help with that, sorry.

    I do want to comment, though, on how you started out. You said there were no aboriginal communities in your particular riding. However, without a doubt it is traditional land of some aboriginal group. I just want to make that point, that all of Canada is.

[Translation]

    Mr. Gérard Binet: There is no doubt that there used to be aboriginal people in my region because artifacts have been found and people remember seeing them.

    In the political arena, both in Ottawa and at the municipal level—I used to be mayor—the number of women is not very high. My view is that we need a lot more women involved in politics and in negotiations. They have a very different way of thinking. I could elaborate on that, but I will simply say that I really enjoyed your presentation.

    I now want to ask you my question. You talked about financial repercussions and the need for money to implement Bill C-7. The minister appeared before this committee in January and assessed the cost of implementing Bill C-7 at $110 million a year.

    The Auditor General said that there was no plan and that the $110 million had no real basis. In your opinion, is that realistic? Have you done any assessments to find out how much it could cost? There are 630 communities and $110 million a year for implementation. Is that realistic? I would like to know whether you have an opinion on that.

[English]

    Chief Sophie Pierre: Thank you for the question.

    I know that the B.C. AFN actually had Deloitte and Touche do a study. Those are the only numbers that I'm aware of. Whether it's $110 million or $510 million, the whole point is, it's money that is not being spent in the best way. There are a lot of requirements in aboriginal communities right now for what this money could be used for.

    The other point, too, as Kathryn said, is that in the meantime we're borrowing money in order to pursue the whole idea of treaty and self-government. Then all this other money comes along, and it's couched in the terms of governance, which we don't agree with.

    So the only numbers I'm aware of are the ones that were prepared by Deloitte and Touche.

    In terms of your first point, though, about more women being involved in politics, I don't think we would have to sit around doing things like this if we had women running the world.

[Translation]

    Mr. Gérard Binet: No, that is true. Thank you.

[English]

    The Chair: Do you wish a two-minute round or should we have closing remarks?

    An hon. member: Closing remarks.

    The Chair: Yes, give the time to our guests, because this is so interesting.

    You have 12 to 13 minutes, and you can use them all. We're really interested in your story, and we'll allow you the time.

    Chief Sophie Pierre: Terrific. Thank you very much.

    For the bands within the Ktunaxa Kinbasket Tribal Council, we've worked as a tribal council, together, for over 30 years, and we have found that the political agenda the people have set for us in terms of our treaty process--which I'll just ask Kathryn to describe--has always been very much a citizen-driven process. Whether we're involved in delivering programs at the community level that are right now funded through the Department of Indian Affairs through to the treaty process, the fact is, we receive our direction from the community. The direction has come from the community in terms of our development to provide us with financial resources such that we don't have to be depending on the Department of Indian Affairs.

    The sooner we put the whole department and the Indian Act and everything else behind us, the better off we're going to be. That really is really our bottom line.

    I'll give Kathryn a few minutes to talk about the citizen-driven treaty process. I know it's a little bit different from what's happening in the rest of the province in terms of the treaty process.

¸  (1445)  

    Ms. Kathryn Teneese: Thank you.

    A message I deliver constantly to our nations is the pride they should have around the fact that we have worked so hard to develop what we call our citizen-driven process, where we begin to build everything, starting from the beginning of a negotiation topic, of developing interest papers, and of moving right up to the subagreements and all of the chapter language--obviously, it's not the really technical legal language, we're not there yet--and taking that out to the communities. We have a community liaison team that goes out and meets with folks in their homes or at community meetings, etc. So we constantly are checking back as we move forward with our discussions.

    I guess the reason I wanted to be here today, particularly around this issue, is that one of the key issues we're dealing with at the present time is the issue of governance. We've looked at where we've come from; you know, we've been on this earth for a long time. So we've looked at those things, we've looked at the current model under the Indian Act, and we've tried to design something that is going to work for us long into the future.

    That's the path we're dealing with right now. So to find ourselves, and in particular, to find the elected leadership, who are elected under the Indian Act, being distracted from these efforts is of great concern to us. We aren't spending a lot of time talking about this at the community level. There have been some discussions, but again, it's something we view as a distraction.

    I repeat this because when you're from a small nation, such as we are, the fact that the continued efforts of government, of the people that we have to deal with, continue to entrench notions that are foreign to us.... The Indian Act bands are creations of the Indian Act. We have what we refer to as communities. We have a nation of people who share the same language, the same culture. In fact, our nation is divided by the 49th parallel, because in addition to the communities I mentioned earlier in our discussion, we have two communities in the states known as Montana and Idaho. They are Ktunaxa people who speak our language, who practice the same cultural activities. In fact, we share many things in common with them. They participate in our discussions even though they are not going to be affected by the treaty we're working out under the B.C. treaty process. We look to them for guidance because they are involved with different kinds of discussions with the respective bodies they've had to deal with.

    I guess the real message we want to ensure that somebody hears is the fact that we are looking to entrench our notion of our nationhood, and that's really what's important to us. How we do that and the tools we use to do that need to be supportive of those efforts rather than hinder them. That's something we fundamentally believe in.

    Certainly, as we go down what I refer to as the “life goes on” road, I see that what's happening in our communities right now is that we're travelling down two roads. We have our road where we're looking long into the future, with our treaty negotiations, and then we have our other road, the life goes on road. We know that we have to fulfill some requirements, some legal requirements, and we have our responsibilities under the Indian Act, but we see eventually that those roads are going to join. They're going to be the same road. But they will be the same road as determined by ourselves.

    That's the important thing. That's the message that I hope you hear, out of anything else you hear across this country, that this is really what first nations are looking for--the opportunity to determine for themselves. Because what we described as right for Ktunaxa isn't going to be right for Haida. It isn't going to be right for Mohawk or anyone else, because we are unique peoples, with our own identities and our own cultural practices. If we hadn't been able to survive, we wouldn't be sitting here in front of you today as Ktunaxa people. So I think that's very important.

¸  (1450)  

    As part of my concluding comments, I want to urge the committee to pay attention to the presentations from first nations and their respective organizations, because it is we who will bear the primary burden of implementing this initiative. It's we who will be penalized if the process is too cumbersome or restrictive, or if it undermines our ability to advance the implementation of the inherent right of self-government.

    We also urge the standing committee to recommend that adequate funding be provided to first nations to ensure that this process does not place a financial burden on us.

    Finally, while we welcome the opportunity to appear before you, we wish to note for the record that the standing committee is designed to fulfill the federal parliamentary process and was not designed to fulfill--it cannot possibly do so--the federal government's obligation to consult with and accommodate the interests of first nations in a meaningful way.

    Thank you.

    The Chair: We thank you very much. Who knows, we might have created an opportunity for another business for you--consultants to help the other communities. Although you say that everyone is different, attitude is everything, and I'm very impressed with your presentation and with what you are doing. I congratulate you. Keep it up on the “life goes on” road.

    Chief Sophie Pierre: Thank you very much.

    The Chair: And we thank you for presenting early. We'll be home earlier.

    Chief Sophie Pierre: That's right.

    The Chair: For those people in the audience who wish to make a two-minute comment, you can register at the table. After the next presentation we will open the floor to two-minute comments for anyone who wishes to make one.

    Now we invite, from the Cariboo Tribal Council, Chief Willie Alphonse Jr., Williams Lake Indian Band.

    Are there five of you or three of you? We have five names here. The more the merrier. We see this as a kitchen table here, so bring them on.

    Chief Alphonse, we welcome you to the table and ask you to make your presentation and introduce your colleagues. We have 45 minutes together. Hopefully you will allow some time for my colleagues to ask questions.

    Please proceed.

    Chief Willie Alphonse, Jr. (Williams Lake Indian Band, Cariboo Tribal Council): Good afternoon. I'm Chief Willie Alphonse from the Williams Lake Band. With me is Chief Dorothy Philips from the Soda Creek Band; the administrator from the Tribal Council, George Girouard; Chief Hank Adams from the Canoe Creek/Dog Creek Band; and Robert Philips, our treaty negotiator at the tribal council for our communities.

    We'd like to thank and acknowledge the Carrier Nation for allowing us to make this presentation in their traditional territory. The Cariboo Tribal Council also thanks the chair and the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources for listening to our concerns on Bill C-7.

    We appreciate the opportunity to use this process to share with you our thoughts and ideas on the bill and what we believe should be done. This is about the future generations of our people--the North Shuswap people representing Williams Lake, Canim Lake, Canoe Creek, Dog Creek, Soda Creek, and Deep Creek bands.

    Consultation with our people is essential to any process in which we engage, Therefore we must consult with our people. The Cariboo Tribal Council has set up and consistently used the process to engage as many band members as possible in discussion and decision-making. This process consists of general band meetings, community meetings, community working groups, family councils, and annual meetings where the members discuss matters of importance and usually reach consensus on them.

    If good decision-making is to occur, our members must first be clearly informed. Second, once they clearly understand the subject matter, they must have time to discuss it with others. Then our leaders consult with them and respect their decisions.

    Our people have not been well informed on Bill C-7. Our internal processes of communication are far from complete. There simply has not been enough time to inform our people as they have a right to be informed. This bill must go to the communities, yet the human resources are simply not available in sufficient numbers to deal with the information, education, and consultation necessary for wise decisions.

    There is plenty of misinformation around, and misinformation is a source of uncertainty and fear. People ask, “Is Bill C-7 more important than the treaty process?” They wonder if the treaty process is a serious one: “Is the government asking treaty and self-government workers to abandon their role and focus on Bill C-7?”

    Another question raised is whether this bill is simply a way of fixing the Indian Act. As you know, Chairperson and members of the committee, our people want the treaty way, not a return to the Indian Act.

    Our people want time to reflect on and discuss Bill C-7. They want to hear from those who are well versed in the bill and who have their interests at heart. They want to understand the position of the Honourable Mr. Nault and the government, and they desire to listen to their respected leaders who are not in agreement. They ask, why does the Assembly of First Nations have a different viewpoint from that of the government? Will there be time and opportunity to hear these different voices? Why is the federal government pushing the First Nations Governance Act through Parliament? Why are default codes in place for first nations to implement policies within two years? Is there truly a partnership here or is the government still determined to tell the first nations people what to do? What if the human and technical resources are not available to implement or to allow for a clear understanding among the staff and people? Will they be forced to make a decision without any real knowledge? Will the federal government come in and make decisions for them, as they have in the past, if we do not implement?

¸  (1455)  

    I'll let Chief Hank Adams carry on from there.

    Chief Hank Adams (As Individual): I'm Chief Hank Adams, and I'm from the Canoe Creek Indian Band.

    On decision-making and community concerns--this is within the tribal council--the people in the communities make the decisions. They tell the leaders what they want, and they elect the leaders who will listen to them. Today they are deeply concerned about the land and the resources. They want just agreements. They hope that the treaty process will bring about these agreements. Our elders urge us to bring about an honourable treaty agreement. They worry about their water, their housing, their education needs. Of great concern is the care of the elders and the employment of the young. A new bill was not on their priority list.

    The Indian Act was not designed to empower first nations but to create dependency of first nations on the federal government by imposing foreign governance structures. The Crown was accommodated via land acquisition through first nation displacement and the denial of basic human rights. Consequently, first nations hold very little authority over programs and services, funding and land.

    Bill C-7 is limited in terms of authority and will be used in conjunction with the Indian Act. It only rewords and modernizes sections of the Indian Act. Although it might be viewed as a stepping stone in self-government, it is an act that still does not improve our governance systems and conditions of our people today.

    There are limitations in terms of the bylaws. For example, the bylaws are similar to municipal-style governance. We are negotiating on a government-to-government basis in the treaty negotiations to a third order of government in Canada, not a municipality. Furthermore, in cases of disputes between first nations and the federal government, the federal government will have paramountcy through the Indian Act. As well, band authority still rests on reserve lands and not traditional territory. This is not a step towards self-determination of the first nations.

    The First Nations Governance Act may not interfere with the treaty rights and negotiations, but what will the impact be on the Canadian Constitution that may directly affect our aboriginal rights? The act may also be seen as an act of bad faith in treaty negotiations, since Canada may impose the act upon all first nations instead of negotiating an agreement through self-government negotiations.

    As for suggestions and recommendations and further comments, the Cariboo Tribal Council is the operations centre for the four northern Secwepemc bands. Under the leadership of the four bands it offers services and resources to the members. It has strict guidelines and it is accountable and open to those it serves. The government does well to trust this council as it carries out its mandate.

    The question of resources, both human and financial, for bringing Bill C-7 to the communities is a serious one, and it requires an immediate answer. Capacity-building, the opportunity for our people to attain the level of education to carry out the technical, managerial, administrative, and political functions necessary to partner with the government, has not been made available to us. It is essential.

    Transparency is needed both ways. A lot of the INAC funding is not directly spent at the community level but in Ottawa and in regional offices in every province. Financial and political accountability is necessary on reserves and in the various levels of the federal government. In terms of Canada's inherent right policy, it should not be displaced or altered without first nations input.

¹  (1500)  

    The recommendations from the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples are continually ignored when they should be upheld. RCAP states:

Aboriginal people must have room to exercise their autonomy and structure their own solutions. The pattern of debilitating and discriminatory paternalism that has characterized federal policies for the past 150 years must end

That's from RCAP, 1996, volume 1:1-3.

    As well, RCAP 1996, volume 2:574, states:

One of the pre-eminent recommendations of the Royal Commission is that governments provide Aboriginal Peoples with lands that are sufficient in size and quality to foster Aboriginal economic self-reliance and cultural and political autonomy.

    Self-determination includes jurisdiction over traditional lands and the development of our own governance structures. Under the First Nations Governance Act, jurisdiction is rigidly prescribed and the land is still limited to the reserve lands. This has to change, and the process we have in place now is the B.C. treaty process, not the First Nations Governance Act.

    In conclusion, consult with our people in the sense of accommodating our needs through meaningful participation before the First Nations Governance Act is imposed. Although we appreciate the hard work of the standing committee, we know that public hearings will not be enough. Community consultation is required. We urge you to work with the Assembly of First Nations, First Nations Summit, Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, Cariboo Tribal Council, other first nations governments, and especially the aboriginal peoples themselves through their chiefs and councils and elders.

    I'd like to thank the chairperson and the members of the standing committee for hearing our thoughts on these matters, the Bill C-7 First Nations Governance Act.

    Kukstemc!

¹  (1505)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Five minutes, first round, Mr. Vellacott.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I'm not sure who I should be asking, but perhaps Willie or whoever would have numbers in terms of the population of the bands in total. What numbers would we be looking at in terms of your band members?

    Chief Willie Alphonse, Jr.: In total, 2,000.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Now, one thing you mentioned here was the issue of resources to do the bylaws. That I can understand; with a combined population of 2,000, that's not a small number but it's maybe not of an adequate size to take this on and do it easily without some more money from someone, and the personnel for that.

    To each of the bands respectively, at this point do you have things that cover off, for example, leadership selection codes and the financial management and administration of government? Do you have written bylaws or codes that you currently operate under or work with?

    Chief Willie Alphonse, Jr.: Speaking for my community, no, we do not.

    Chief Hank Adams: For the Canoe Creek Band, we did develop our own election codes; however, they were passed to Indian Affairs and then they were lost or whatever. There was a change in that office. They were misplaced, so they had to come back to the community for another round of ratification.

    Those are some of the problems we see when we talk about capacity. There has to be accountability both ways.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Accountability on the other end.

    Chief Hank Adams: Right.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Okay, well, sorry to hear that--

    Robert L.T. Philips (As Individual): At Canim Lake Band we have custom codes. And in terms of the overall tribal council, the four bands, we're also working on a constitution, and a policy manual that's in place. That will certainly be worked right through down to the communities as well, under their direction.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Sorry to exclude you, Robert. So you're from one of the other bands that's...

    Mr. Robert L.T. Philips: I'm a member of the Canim Lake Band but I'm also working at the tribal council.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: So it's custom as in written-up codes and so on; is that what you're referring to?

    Mr. Robert L.T. Philips: Yes. We're looking at the overall five-year operational plan, which George can talk more to later on, if he wants.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Right. But you have custom codes in respect to leadership selection, financial management, accountability, and administration of government? You have this written up somewhere, somehow?

    Mr. Robert L.T. Philips: At Canim Lake, from my understanding we're working in that direction--or have those areas covered.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Did I miss over here, in terms of your situation?

    Chief Dorothy Philips (As Individual): I'm Chief Dorothy Philips, Soda Creek Band.

    One of the things we've been working on in our community is meeting with family, with council. We went through our recent elections. We don't have our own custom elections, but that's what we're working toward.

    If you know the INAC process, from the information I have, we develop our own bylaws and then it goes to INAC. It takes another year for them to make a decision on it. We still have certain laws under the Corbiere decision that need to be followed.

    I think that's where the concern comes from in our community, that we want to develop our own process of election, our own leadership. There's always the Indian Act that we have to fall back on. Government's telling us how we should operate and how we should run our elections. That's one of the concerns we have.

¹  (1510)  

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I understand that there's difference of opinion on how much latitude you have within Bill C-7, but it's not prescribing, unless you get into default code. And we don't know what that will be yet, but you do have some latitude. So I'm wondering if you each could quickly respond in terms of what you have presently. Could you conceive of that fitting into Bill C-7 and being workable, to shoehorn it in, insert that, and you've met the requirements?

    I guess maybe we could start with Hank, or Robert over there, and then move over this way, to Dorothy.

    Can you use what you have presently? I mean, you don't have it complete in terms of the requirements here, but could you take and use what you do have? Would that be workable for Bill C-7?

    Mr. Robert L.T. Philips: If I may, we've had consultation with the communities, in the last five years especially, on restructuring, trying to be very accountable, open, and transparent in all the areas you're talking about.

    When we did talk to the communities, that was very important, but other issues came up that were just as important, if not more important. So we had to focus on those areas. That's what we're trying to relay in this document, what our priorities are. That's why, if this governance act does go through, although the codes and the financial and all those things are very important, we're already doing that. In terms of the codes you're looking for, they may not be done, but we're getting there, moving in that direction. It's just a matter now, I think, of making those codes.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Martin, five minutes.

    Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you, all of you, for your presentations.

    In your opening comments you made the point that your people have not been well informed about this very complex series of legislation that's now on your lap, if you will, and that the details of this bill were not your priorities. It's not your choice right now to be dealing with these issues when there are other more pressing basic needs issues or treaty negotiations, which would be a final solution to some of this mess.

    You asked the question, why is the federal government pushing the First Nations Governance Act through Parliament? What could the minister possibly be thinking if everywhere we go in the country we hear that nobody wants this now, or that even if they don't object to the ideas of accountability and election codes, it's not their top-of-mind issue?

    Would anybody care to comment on why this bill now?

    Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

    The Chair: Mr. Hubbard.

    Mr. Charles Hubbard: I'm rather concerned, Mr. Martin, that you're leading the witness, and I'm not sure--

    Mr. Pat Martin: This is not a court of law, for God's sake.

    The Chair: Not directly to the member, please.

¹  (1515)  

    Mr. Charles Hubbard: He is saying “everywhere” and “everybody”, and I don't think that is the impression the committee wants to give to the witnesses.

    The Chair: Well, since I've been so lenient, I'll just say that when one member speaks he doesn't speak on behalf of the committee, he speaks on his own behalf. I'll let it go.

    Mr. Martin.

    Mr. Pat Martin: I wanted the views of some of the people on the panel.

    Why do you think you have this matter to deal with at this point, when it's not one of your priorities, as you stated?

    Mr. George Girouard (As Individual): When we look at what's happening with Bill C-7, at how it's being brought to Parliament and pushed through, we know it's going to have long-term detrimental effects on our self-governance concepts, and that's why we're asking the question, why the rush? If we're in treaty negotiations right now, isn't that almost infringing on that type of process?

    What you're asking us to do is take a cookie-cutter model and utilize that model for the future of where we're looking at going with self-governance. When we talk about self-governance, that doesn't just mean it's all designed the way municipal-style governments are. We talk about how we interact with our community members and how that process is really vital and important to us as first nations in Canada. But we need to know that our concerns are being met at a community level.

    So why the rush? Why does this have to be pushed through Parliament so quickly without our people at a grassroots level knowing what's happening? That's our biggest concern.

    When you talk about whether or not there's accountability at our band level, there is accountability. We go through the same process, and a lot of this is already encapsulated within this Bill C-7. We go through elections. Our people are held accountable. We have AGMs, we have community meetings, and consequently, you can be guaranteed that the community people within our environment will let you know if you're not doing the job. You won't be there in two years. And that's what really happens within our election process.

    A lot of this, as I said, gets rehashed. We sit there going, well, is this our biggest focus? No, it isn't. What we'd like to see in the long run is self-determination, our own self-governance. It's really key that we work at this to define this ourselves. When we talk about nation-to-nation and government-to-government negotiations, we're wondering why it has to be changed to this act that's going to impact us in the future. That's one of our key things; when we talk about this, we want to make sure that our people, our future generations of people, are going to be addressed adequately and professionally and in a required manner. Ten years from now, you could be coming back to the table trying to rehash more of this. We want to define a governance model that will meet our needs, and basically, that's what we have to live with.

    So that's our biggest concern, why the rush?

    Mr. Pat Martin: How much time do I have, Mr. Chair?

    The Chair: Thirty seconds.

    Mr. Pat Martin: Does that include the interruption?

    You made the point that whether you voluntarily get your own codes in place according to Bill C-7--and we believe this is a roller coaster we're not going to be able to stop by June--your lives will be changed permanently by Bill C-7. Let me put it this way: a lot of small bands have made the point that there's a huge financial and human resources burden in trying to change the way you do business to try to comply with Bill C-7, and that money might come out of basic programming.

    Can you make the case for the financial impact of these imposed changes that I predict will be imposed on you?

    The Chair: Monsieur Binet.

    Mr. Pat Martin: I'm sorry, I asked a question of the witnesses....

    The Chair: You asked me how much time you had, and you took 45 seconds. You can't put 45 in 30. This is not new. This is the way we've been doing it for years. You took the witnesses' time.

[Translation]

    Mr. Binet, the floor is yours.

¹  (1520)  

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

    Good afternoon to all of you. I really liked your presentation, but what impressed me at the beginning was your age or, in any case, the age that you look to be, because I do not know how old you actually are. Before becoming a member of Parliament in Ottawa, I was a mayor. When I went to the first meeting of mayors, one of the organizers told me that I would not change everything because business and politics were somewhat different. But I am certainly pleased to see that your presentation reflects an open-minded approach. When people reach a certain age, they sometimes feel that they have worked hard but to no avail, and that nothing will change.

    It seems to me that you are at an age now where you will be able to see change. As you know, Mr. Nault is young. There are many first nations communities in his riding. He knows them well, he wants to work hard and he really wants to move things ahead, and I can tell you that our government does as well. This week's budget was evidence of that. With young chiefs, we may have some new visions, since vision is needed in order to reach goals.

    In his statement at the advisory committee meeting, Mr. Nault asked that ancestral rights, treaty rights and fiduciary relationships not be affected. Do you feel that your ancestral rights, treaty rights and fiduciary relationships have been unaffected by Bill C-7? That is my question.

[English]

    The Chair: Who wishes to address this question? You can share time.

    Chief George.

¹  (1525)  

    Mr. George Girouard: It's a really good question. We know that this is going to have an effect on us in terms of our aboriginal rights and treaty rights in the future. When we look at this bill and ask how it affects our governance, at how it affects us, basically we now have to follow a municipal-style governance. We have to select an ombudsman from within our ranks to go forward and meet with our community people when there is already a forum there for discussion among our community members. It is detracting from what we perceive as being aboriginal governance.

    So it will have a long-term effect for us. When we sit back and say, well, our community members do have the right to argue issues as it comes down to law, do we all have the right to vote against law? Does Parliament come to us and ask us, do you guys believe in this law--vote against it, vote for it?

    Those are the types of changes that are coming down the pipe, and, yes, it's totally against what we're proposing. When we define laws and develop laws, they do come from our people. It is our people who have to vote for those laws, but they also respect the issue of political development--where our chiefs are at, where our administrators are at. If there are impacts on them at the community level, I think we have to look at what that long-term effect is going to be.

    We could be tied up in civil litigation at a community level forever just because of what's coming down the pipe. It's something that is going to affect an individual at that level. We do have family groups that deal with the issues and come forward and deal with them at a political level. Our chiefs meet with our family groups. Our family groups come forward and talk to our people on our council and tell them what their challenges are.

    Those are some of the big things we look at when it comes down to aboriginal rights and title. Are we able to define what it is we look for in the future? No, it's being imposed.

    So it is going to have some detrimental effects, yes.

    The Chair: Mr. Philips.

    Mr. Robert L.T. Philips: I have just a quick statement. There were aboriginal rights and title before, there are aboriginal rights and title now, and there will be aboriginal rights and title after, no matter what legislation.

    Again, this paper at first wasn't so diplomatic. We went through a process even in our communities to make it as professional as possible, to take into account all views.

    The Chair: And you did a good job of it.

    There's still more time. My job as chair is to clarify things, so I'll clarify. I won't say to you that the government is not pushing this through or rushing it through, but I will explain the process.

    There was consultation. Some say it was massive and others say it didn't exist. However, somewhere $10 million was spent, and there has been some consultation.

    This committee spent three months in anticipation of the bill just to get educated on the Indian Act. We were told the bill would be tabled in December 2001. We waited all that time. It was tabled in June. Then we prorogued. This committee is spending nine weeks on this bill. It will go back to the House. It will be debated again and voted on--and amended, of course.

    I shouldn't say “of course”, as Mr. Martin is correcting me; I should say “possibly”.

    Then there will be another debate and voted a third time. If it survives that, it will go to the Senate and it will start at the same point where we started.

    So you can be the judge of whether or not we're rushing it through. I say “we” because I just happen to be on that side, but I'm not government.

    We invite you to make closing remarks. We're interested in the things you are doing. It's very helpful. There are 13 minutes left, and you can share your time any way you want.

    We'll start off with the chief.

    Chief Willie Alphonse, Jr.: I appreciate having the opportunity and the time that was given to us. We have made Bill C-7 a priority in our area.

    Our first nations people have come a long way from past dealings, when the Indian Act was implemented. We are more highly educated now. We have picked up a lot of the non-native ways, competing in the non-native way, educating our people. And that's a priority in my community, education, so that we can compete with non-natives.

    That's where we are. We're not first nations of 100 years ago. We're moving along with the times, and we are not going away. We've gone through a lot of challenges in our past as well.

    Again, I thank you.

    The Chair: Anyone else?

    Chief Hank Adams: I was elected chief last June. Before that I was a self-government coordinator for Canoe Creek in the treaty process. I gained a lot of experience there, and I guess some of that led me into the position I'm in today. Living on the outside and then coming home was a tough transition, but I made it, and I'm here.

    When I was the self-government coordinator, looking at our structures and so on that were in place, we wanted to be competitive out there in the market, saying that Canoe Creek was open for business. However, I'm not really comfortable saying that today, because I don't think we're at that point now, mainly because we deal with a lot of social issues in our community, including alcohol and drugs. Just last night we had a healing circle. We had to deal with a shooting. It went all day, more or less, so we were up until 11 o'clock.

    Those are the kinds of things we have to deal with. So when it comes time to dealing with our real job, as political leaders, those are the shortcomings. We just don't have the capacity in the communities or the expertise in some areas to be dealing with the issues at hand.

    So when it comes to this bill, I have to honestly say that I don't really know what it's about because of all the other areas where we're called upon to deal with things. We should have front line staff to deal with them. But those are the challenges we go through.

    Canoe Creek is working in the direction of becoming competitive in this province. I'll just leave it at that.

    Thanks.

¹  (1530)  

    The Chair: Thank you.

    We will take back for you the message about sufficient funds. When they decide whether this works or not, we'll drive the message for you, forcefully.

    Does anyone else wish to make a comment?

    Chief Dorothy Philips: I just want to thank the committee for taking the time to let us do a presentation here.

    One of the things our community has been working on, as we said, is the elections code. One of the main concerns in our community is that for every election we go through this whole process of nominations and elections, and it's a two-year process. Every two years we go through the same thing; change happens, new leaders come in, and priorities change.

    I think those are the things our community is working on to improve how we do business at the band level. Our community members want us to work on dealing with the effects in our community, starting with the healing process. But one of the ways Bill C-7 creates a problem for us is that the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs comes in and determines how you're going to live your life. I think that's the main concern we have.

    For instance, how many of us here have teenagers? You know that if you try to tell your teenager the things they should do in their lives, or if you try to live their lives for them, they're going to retaliate. And I think that's one of the biggest concerns we have with our first nations. For years we've been told how to live our lives. We've been living under the Indian Act, and it's time we started being involved in the whole process of determining how we're going to govern ourselves.

    I think that's the main message we want to give to the committee. We know how we want to govern ourselves. We do not need the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs to tell us how to govern. We get our direction from the people. The people let us know what they want, and that's who we listen to. They're the ones who elected us, and that's where we get our direction from.

    Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Anyone else?

¹  (1535)  

    Mr. Robert L.T. Philips: My final comment has to do with the table of contents. We gave you a binder with information in there. Section B is a very important part, where we have our mission statement that includes the people of the Cariboo region, the province, and Canada, that we will work together with the citizens and people of Canada. It also contains Chief Williams' statement from 1879, and a memorial to Sir Wilfrid Laurier, August 25, 1910, calling for a treaty. Then there's our chiefs statements on Delgamuukw and crown lands, dated September 25, 1998.

    That will give you some idea of where we're coming from on a political level.

    Thank you.

    The Chair: Mr. Girouard.

    Mr. George Girouard: The last comment I want to make to you guys is basically in line with what Dorothy says. Self-governance is our model, and it's up to us to define what that model is when we talk about it on a nation-to-nation developmental process. Focus the resources where they're required, at the community members, the community people--not like the gun registry, with $1 billion in the hole and still counting, and not like what's going to transpire here to try to get this bill passed. Focus the money where it's needed, on the people.

    That's my last comment.

    The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. It's very helpful, and your binder will be very helpful also.

    Before we go to individual comments, there are snacks in the other room. Help yourselves, anyone. We will probably be rushing out as we finish, although we'll allow the time required here.

    I invite Ted Morris to come and make a two-minute comment.

    The amount of time allocated--two minutes--we will stick to, so we urge you to be brief.

    M. Ted Morris (As Individual): My name is Ted Morris, and I' from the Nee-Tahi-Buhn Band. Our band is not in the treaty process. On your self-governance issues, such as your election codes, our band has spent thousands and thousands of dollars to draft up an election code. We have a constitution, just like every tribal council, every municipality. That is supposed to be our safety net. If the B.C. government had the same election codes as we had, Gordon Campbell would not be our premier right now.

    That's the kind of accountability we have in our first nations. We have election codes. Our term of office is not two years, as in the Indian Act, but four years. In two years you cannot do what needs to be done without having the interruption of an election.

    As for your accountability, we still don't have that down pat. There was an accountability workshop down at the friendship centre, and there were RCMP and regional Department of Indian Affairs people. They more or less talked about having treasury boards, and having a treasury board, not a chief and council, goes more or less against the Indian Act and all the other people who are used to having chief and council as the absolute power.

    How can people come up to our country and ask us to have accountability when they won't even recognize a person who is not a chief and council? Having a treasury board is what was stressed, to counter having your chief and council as the absolute power. If anybody in any first nation has a treasury board as a counterbalance, we would sure like to have their... to see if it does work or doesn't work.

¹  (1540)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much. We allowed you an extra minute. We appreciate your participation and thank you very much.

    Now I invite Andrew Casimel to speak.

    In all fairness, Mr. Casimel, we will allow you three minutes. Ted got you an extra minute here.

    Mr. Andrew Casimel (As Individual): Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.

    I think once again we're faced with the paternalistic attitude of the bureaucrats in Ottawa. We were presented with an exercise that was designed and developed in Ottawa. I am responsible for the success or failure of a government-sponsored program designed outside our communities. There was no input from my reserve as far as the programs are concerned. Once again, we have to follow something that's almost alien to us on our reserve.

    For instance, the last part of the Indian Act, on the removal of materials, says in part:

93. A person who, without the written permission of the Minister or his duly authorized representative,

(a) removes or permits anyone to remove from a reserve

(i) minerals, stone, sand, gravel, clay or soil, or

(ii) trees, saplings, shrubs, underbrush, timber, cordwood or hay, or

is guilty of an offence.

    We don't own anything on that reserve. Anything that's on reserve belongs to Her Majesty the Queen.

    Anything that's brought to us from the government is viewed with suspicion. As the councillor for Stellat'en First Nation, when I bring up the government's concern, in this case Bill C-31, I'm viewed with suspicion. That's another program that's been shoved on our people without as much as a consultation on our reserve. The people affected by this program are busy with day-to-day survival, let alone the finer points, such as bylaw-making and self-governance.

    That's all I have to say.

    Thank you very much.

    The Chair: We thank you very much.

    I have Mr. Harold Prince's name here. I'm saving Mr. Prince for last, because we'll be allowing more time than the three minutes.

    For now we will call on Ken Edzerza, for three minutes, please.

    Mr. Ken Edzerza (As Individual): I guess I'm a result of the Indian Act; that is, in your wisdom, I was not considered an Indian until I was about 35 years old. Yet what I see here in terms of what is going on right now is that it's a one-way track. It's Indian Affairs, or the government, telling us what we should be doing, but it doesn't define what the government's responsibilities are to us as aboriginal people. I think that's an area that causes a lot of problems here.

    One of the things that comes up here, just from an historical point of view, is that it says here that we represent a democratic government, and we believe in democratic rule. And yet in B.C., when there were 50,000 aboriginal people to 5,000 white people, aboriginal people didn't have the right to vote.

    So when we talk about democratic rule, to me that isn't a history of democracy, it is a history of dictatorship. That's what I see happening here as well.

    If you want accountability, it has to be a two-way street. One of the problems I've seen so far is that it says “eligible voter”. What's happened right now, for a lot of people who have been disenfranchised as aboriginal people and for the other seven or eight generations of aboriginal people to come, is that our rights aren't being protected, or haven't been protected, I believe. Right now, as an aboriginal person I don't belong to a band. So it doesn't give me any feelings of security when I see the government again basically giving away or abrogating their responsibilities in terms of a fiduciary responsibility to aboriginal people in general. I don't see that in the act.

    When it says in here that they want accountability, it doesn't state that the government will deal fairly with us to ensure that we get sufficient support, financial or professional support, to ensure that this happens. Right now, if you're outside of a circle, it's trying to break through that circle in order to have our rights determined.

    In terms of equality, as an aboriginal person, under Bill C-31 I was required to go through a process to determine my blood line. I did that. So in an equality state, everybody should have to do the same thing, and I don't see that coming down here. I don't see in the act how the government is going to become more accountable to us through it.

    I see a political tool here in order to basically have more control over what we do as people. I don't see where the government has an obligation. For example, if I have a dispute against the government under this act, who would I go to? How do I do that unless I go through the court system? As an individual, it would be a financially huge burden on my part to try to do that, and I don't see that happening.

¹  (1545)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much. Your comments are noted.

    I now go to Harold Prince, vice-chief of the Carrier Sekani Tribal Council. I kept Mr. Prince waiting because we have ten minutes left until the end of our public hearings in Prince George. Since he is here as a representative of a tribal council, instead of three minutes we will allow him ten.

    Please proceed.

    Mr. Harold Prince (As Individual): Good afternoon. I'd like to welcome you all to the Carrier Sekani tribal territory.

    My apologies from our tribal chief, Mavis Erickson, who would have been here to do this presentation. I'm standing in for her this afternoon. I thank you for taking the time to hear my presentation.

    The Carrier Sekani Tribal Council has a membership of 5,000, all of whose territory spreads throughout most of the central interior of British Columbia. We are also in the treaty process, the B.C. treaty process, and we operate under the umbrella of the Carrier Sekani Tribal Council.

    In respect to Bill C-7, while it addresses many of the fundamental concerns of first nation members in terms of accountability and leadership, there is concern over the consultation process and timeframes. Has the process been rushed to meet the government's needs, and has it neglected to consider the needs of the first nations governed by this act?

    This is not just an act that addresses the elections and administration and practices of bands. While there is, no doubt, some uncertainty about band legal capacity and their entities, there is also uncertainty as to whether the act addresses these issues in a manner consistent with their best interests.

    This is highly complex, and it needs to be addressed by first nation people with expertise in this area. What is feared is that this act will be used by the government to diminish its fiduciary responsibilities, despite claims to the contrary.

    There is also concern over compulsory aspects of the act. Again, this relates to consultation and the feeling that the government has failed to address concerns of first nation councils, who must administer programs and services on a day-to-day basis.

    Further, with reference to the bands under custom election codes, this system, which has been in effect for many years and has been successful, will not meet the new criteria. The First Nations Summit has undertaken a number of analyses of Bill C-7. It is recommended that interested parties read with regard to the proposed First Nations Governance Act--and this is for the audience that is here with us, the interested first nations who are in the gallery, listening to my submission--the commentary and recommendations proposed by Maria Morellato. I encourage everyone to read the new governance act, Bill C-7, and make recommendations to the standing committee, because this standing committee will certainly make recommendations to Parliament in regard to this bill.

    I thank you this afternoon for listening to my submission.

    That's it.

¹  (1550)  

    The Chair: We thank you very much, and we thank the whole community for accepting our invitation and participating. We don't take lightly the responsibility we have. We know it's a difficult job that we have to do. We have a flawed piece of legislation, and we're going to try to make it better until we can have everyone in Canada have self-governance, so that you can in fact govern yourselves.

    This is the purpose of our meeting here today, to try to make life better. Hopefully, we'll do a good job.

    Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian Alliance): On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to clarify something.

    I think your advice to the gallery was excellent, but I think it's important to note, especially from the opposition's perspective, that what you have and what you're asking people to read is a draft of Bill C-7. Bill C-7 will be produced at some point when we get back to Parliament, and I'm hopeful that it will take quite a different form from what you have before you today.

    But your advice is good, and those people should read it and make those recommendations.

    The Chair: Okay, I have to clarify that statement. Bill C-7 is a bill tabled in the House of Commons. It's not a draft. Mr. Chatters uses the word “draft” because normally the minister will table a bill in the House of Commons, and it's considered voted once. There's a debate, there's a vote, and then it's sent to committee.

    What happened with Bill C-7 is that it was tabled in the House and sent to the committee right away. That allows us to make more amendments. Normally they treat draft bills that way, but this is a real bill. We all know that there are amendments required. There's no doubt about that. Let's hope that together we can come up with good amendments.

    Thank you very much. This terminates our public hearings for this week.