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

Wednesday, March 19, 2003

1250

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

Ms. Elizabeth Fleming (Vice-President, Provincial Council of Women of Manitoba, Inc.)

1255

The Chair

Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, Canadian Alliance)

1300

Ms. Elizabeth Fleming

Mr. Brian Pallister

Ms. Elizabeth Fleming

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

Ms. Elizabeth Fleming

Mr. Pat Martin

1305

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Elizabeth Fleming

The Chair

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

Ms. Elizabeth Fleming

The Chair

1310

Chief Dwayne Blackbird (Keeseekoowenin Ojibway First Nation, Treaty No. 2 - The Riding Mountain Band)

The Chair

Chief Dwayne Blackbird

1315

The Chair

Mr. Brian Pallister

Chief Dwayne Blackbird

1320

Mr. Brian Pallister

Chief Dwayne Blackbird

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Chief Dwayne Blackbird

1325

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.)

Chief Dwayne Blackbird

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Chief Dwayne Blackbird

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Chief Dwayne Blackbird

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Chief Dwayne Blackbird

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Chief Dwayne Blackbird

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Chief Dwayne Blackbird

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Chief Dwayne Blackbird

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Chief Dwayne Blackbird

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Chief Dwayne Blackbird

Mr. Charles Hubbard

1330

Chief Dwayne Blackbird

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Chief Dwayne Blackbird

The Chair

Mr. Brian Pallister

Chief Dwayne Blackbird

Mr. Brian Pallister

Chief Dwayne Blackbird

Mr. Brian Pallister

Chief Dwayne Blackbird

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Chief Dwayne Blackbird

1335

Mr. Brian Pallister

The Chair

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

Chief Dwayne Blackbird

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell

Chief Dwayne Blackbird

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell

Chief Dwayne Blackbird

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell

Chief Dwayne Blackbird

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell

Chief Dwayne Blackbird

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell

The Chair

Chief Dwayne Blackbird

The Chair

Chief Louis J. Stevenson (Peguis Indian Band)

1340

1345

1350

1355

1400

1405

The Chair

Ms. Leona Freed (First Nations Accountability Coalition)

1410

1415

The Chair

Ms. Leona Freed

The Chair

Mr. Brian Pallister

Ms. Leona Freed

Mr. Brian Pallister

Ms. Leona Freed

Mr. Brian Pallister

The Chair

Ms. Leona Freed

The Chair

Mr. Brian Pallister

Ms. Leona Freed

Mr. Brian Pallister

Ms. Leona Freed

Mr. Brian Pallister

1420

Ms. Leona Freed

Mr. Brian Pallister

Ms. Leona Freed

Mr. Brian Pallister

Ms. Leona Freed

Mr. Brian Pallister

Ms. Leona Freed

Mr. Brian Pallister

Ms. Leona Freed

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Leona Freed

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Leona Freed

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Leona Freed

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Leona Freed

Mr. Pat Martin

1425

Ms. Leona Freed

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Leona Freed

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Leona Freed

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Leona Freed

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Leona Freed

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Leona Freed

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Leona Freed

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Stan Dromisky

The Chair

Mr. Stan Dromisky

Ms. Leona Freed

Mr. Stan Dromisky

Ms. Leona Freed

Mr. Stan Dromisky

The Chair

Mr. Brian Pallister

Ms. Leona Freed

1435

Mr. Brian Pallister

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Leona Freed

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Leona Freed

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Leona Freed

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Leona Freed

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Leona Freed

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

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

Ms. Leona Freed

The Chair

Ms. Leona Freed

1440

The Chair

Ms. Elizabeth Fleming

The Chair

Mr. Edwin Mitchell (As Individual)

The Chair

Mr. Edwin Mitchell

1445

The Chair

Ms. Lorena Fontaine (As Individual)

1450

The Chair

Ms. Lorena Fontaine

The Chair

Ms. Caroline Bruyere (Elder, Sagkeeng First Nation, As Individual)

The Chair

Ms. Caroline Bruyere

The Chair

Ms. Caroline Bruyere

The Chair

Ms. Glenice Smith (Roseau River, As Individual)

1455

The Chair

Ms. Muriel Smith (Convener, International Affairs, National Council of Women of Canada)

1500

1505

The Chair

Mr. Brian Pallister

Ms. Muriel Smith

1510

Mr. Brian Pallister

Ms. Muriel Smith

The Chair

Ms. Muriel Smith

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Muriel Smith

1515

The Chair

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell

Ms. Muriel Smith

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell

The Chair

Ms. Muriel Smith

The Chair

1520

Mr. James Wastasecoot (As Individual)

The Chair

Mr. James Wastasecoot

The Chair

1525

Mr. James Wastasecoot

The Chair

Rev. Jim Sinclair (As Individual)

The Chair

Chief Tina Leveque (As Individual)

1530

The Chair

Grand Chief Dennis White Bird (As Individual)

1535

The Chair

Mr. Dennis Pashe (As Individual)

The Chair

1540

Mr. Marcel Balfour (Councillor, Chief and Council Office, Norway House Cree Nation)

1545

1550

The Chair

Mr. Brian Pallister

Mr. Marcel Balfour

Mr. Brian Pallister

The Chair

Mr. Brian Pallister

Mr. Marcel Balfour

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

1555

Mr. Marcel Balfour

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Marcel Balfour

The Chair

Mr. Stan Dromisky

Mr. Marcel Balfour

Mr. Stan Dromisky

Mr. Marcel Balfour

Mr. Stan Dromisky

1600

Mr. Marcel Balfour

Mr. Stan Dromisky

The Chair

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

Mr. Marcel Balfour

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Marcel Balfour

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Marcel Balfour

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Marcel Balfour

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Marcel Balfour

Mr. Pat Martin

1605

Mr. Marcel Balfour

The Chair

Mr. John Godfrey

Mr. Marcel Balfour

Mr. John Godfrey

Mr. Marcel Balfour

Mr. John Godfrey

1610

Mr. Marcel Balfour

The Chair

Ms. Gisèle Saurette-Roch (As Individual)

The Chair

Ms. Gisèle Saurette-Roch

The Chair

Ms. Corena Letandre (As Individual)

1615

The Chair

Ms. Priscilla Levasseur (As Individual)

1620

The Chair

Ms. Priscilla Levasseur

The Chair

Ms. Priscilla Levasseur

The Chair

Ms. Frances Ravinsky (As Individual)

The Chair

Ms. Frances Ravinsky

The Chair

Ms. Frances Ravinsky

The Chair

Ms. Marjorie Prince (As Individual)

1625

The Chair

Mr. Donovan Jacobs (As Individual)

The Chair

Mr. Donovan Jacobs

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources

NUMBER 045

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Wednesday, March 19, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Â (1250)

[English]

The Chair (Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.)): Order. We will resume proceedings 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, from the Provincial Council of Women of Manitoba, Inc., the vice-president, Elizabeth Fleming.

A voice: [Editor's Note: Inaudible]

The Chair: Well, my role is to start when I have a member from the government side and a member from the opposition.

Welcome, Ms. Fleming. We have 20 minutes together. We invite you to make a presentation. If you allow the time, we will have a period of questions.

Ms. Elizabeth Fleming (Vice-President, Provincial Council of Women of Manitoba, Inc.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Provincial Council of Women of Manitoba is pleased to have this opportunity to speak to Bill C-7, the First Nations Governance Act. We are a federation of provincially organized women, women and men's groups, and individuals. We act on a non-partisan basis, based on the provincial and National Council of Women of Canada resolution system to improve the quality of life for women and their families in Manitoba.

The council's interest and concern for improving the quality of life for aboriginal women and their families arise from our interaction with aboriginal women over the years. We have two valued aboriginal organizations as federates. Over the years, we have learned about the lives of aboriginal women through joint programs designed to build bridges between our cultures.

In the last two years, a number of first nations women have asked us for assistance. We're not a service provider, but within our mandate, and when asked, the provincial council has supported the women in situations involving safety, human rights, and democracy.

Why are we addressing this bill? To be clear, the provincial council is not speaking on behalf of aboriginal women. The decision for us to speak publicly on Bill C-7 was not taken lightly. We're a federate member of the National Council of Women, and we fully support the brief that will be presented to you at three o'clock this afternoon by another of our members. Our comments should be considered in conjunction with those of the national council.

What we have learned of the fear, the violence, the violation of human rights, the lack of democracy on a small first nation in southern Manitoba--which we will call “X FN”--the lack of recourse or remedy, and the indifference of government leaders charged with the responsibility for the safety, democracy, and human rights of these women is shocking. It would be wrong to be silent, given what we know of the conspicuous absence of human rights legislation to protect aboriginal peoples and the struggles that a group of women has gone though to be allowed an election and to obtain adequate police service on the reserve.

X FN is not alone. We have received calls from women on other Manitoba reserves seeking help with similar issues.

I'd first like to address the leadership selection code in clause 5. A number of the aboriginal woman have asked us about elections--for example, how to get an election under section 74 of the Indian Act--how to challenge alleged election irregularities with the mail-in voting system and vote buying, and about orders for new elections. In Manitoba, the media frequently carry articles about first nations elections that validate the complaints we receive.

Working with individual first nations' traditional ways, and, if needed, the election officer of Canada and United Nations bodies that have experience in this area, to establish clear band codes on leadership selection, should lead over time to greater stability of leadership. Where there are traditional ways of leadership selection, including circles of elders, women, and youth, it is vital that they are respected and included.

On the administration of government code, clause 6, the administration of these codes could do much to reduce the complaints we have heard about band meetings, and the consultation, or lack of consultation, of the grassroots concerning band council resolutions.

We are pleased that your committee has invited the Information Commissioner of Canada to assist you with making recommendations for an appeal system for access to information and protection of privacy for band members. This is essential, as band members need to know how their band is being run in order to have any sort of informed say in their communities' affairs and to hold their leadership accountable to them.

On the financial management and accountability code, clauses 7 through 10, one of the areas that has been most severely criticized by the aboriginal women from whom we have heard is that of financial management. On X FN, for example, $3 million to $4 million, mostly from Indian Affairs, is allegedly unaccounted for. And this is an extremely small community.

The 2001-02 financial statement is only now just being released. X FN women also ask how funds intended for housing repairs on reserve have been used. It's not just federal money; X FN and other first nations want to know how gambling revenues are being used.

The Government of Manitoba has asked the Auditor General of Manitoba to conduct an audit of native gaming. A special operational review of X FN gaming has also been commissioned. Both are due any day now.

These examples bring to mind the engineers in the City of Winnipeg water department. In the 1980s, the engineers looked at a graph showing a steady increase in water use over the years. They said it was time to think about twinning the aqueduct from Shoal Lake, the source of our drinking water. Then the engineers noticed that a lot of water was being lost in places along the line, because of leaks. The engineers now are getting very good at detecting leaks and fixing them. They also started a water conservation program, Slow the Flow, and it wasn't long before the engineers announced that the city didn't need to twin the aqueduct after all, saving themselves and us, as taxpayers, a considerable amount of money.

Every year a lot of money flows from Indian Affairs, Health Canada, Human Resources Canada, etc., to first nations, but according to aboriginal women, the Auditor General, and the media, there are leaks along the line. These lines need to be examined for leaks, starting right in the federal government departments themselves, through the regional offices and other bodies responsible for the distribution of funds, through the consultants' and auditors' offices, and into the band office of each first nation--and then to the people.

Any leaks that are found should be corrected so that the flow goes to where it is intended and needed. Ongoing vigilance, openness, and routine disclosure of financial matters will improve such financial accountability. Fixing the leaks could help find money for housing and alleviate poverty.

The Auditor General of Canada recently reported that first nations are required to submit to the federal government 168 financial forms a year, some of which are unnecessary and redundant. It would be very helpful if the Auditor General, aboriginal people, the accounting profession, and departments could agree on a financial reporting system that does the job with checks and balances but that is not more onerous than necessary.

The above three areas of governance could have positive effects on the aboriginal women with whom we are working. However, different communities will take varying lengths of time to build capacity to bring about change based on their values and customs. Many will require additional support. The timeframe, as many others have noted, may not be realistic for all first nations.

In terms of complaints and redress, in clause 11, and inspection and search of band enforcement officers, clauses 23 to 29, members of X FN may or may not address your committee themselves. The first and last time they made an address to a standing committee was in the Manitoba Legislature in July of last year. Five band members opposed a bill to extend aboriginal policing on reserves in Manitoba. Two days later, three of them were arrested and jailed overnight by the same aboriginal policing service whose policing they had just openly criticized. Charges that were laid the day after the arrests have yet to be dealt with by the Manitoba justice system.

The decision of X FN band members since then to replace the aboriginal policing with RCMP was unanimous. There are a number of outstanding law enforcement review agency complaints against APS, or aboriginal policing service, officers. Numerous complaints alleging the one-sided and political nature of the APS were sent to the Manitoba Minister of Justice, the Minister of Indian Affairs Canada, and to the Solicitor General of Canada.

There is no doubt that policing on X FN is challenging for any police force, but the difficulties were compounded in the heavily politicized environment where the aboriginal policing agreement was made by the chief without consulting the band members.

It is worth noting that a survey of aboriginal police chiefs found that one of the two most important problems in aboriginal policing was--and I quote--“interference by local politicians”. The reference is supplied in your package.

It was our observation that the politicization of the police force on X FN was the foundation for the violation of human rights. There was no recourse available. It may be hard to find an impartial person or body to look into complaints, or to enforce band laws, but the implications of having untrained band enforcement officers with marked political biases are very serious indeed. First nations women's advice must be followed on this issue.

I believe you have had some aboriginal women's groups speaking to you on this. We urge you to listen to them.

Â (1255)

Finally, on human rights, clause 42--and there will be more of this from the National Council of Women's brief later this afternoon--a number of women on X FN lost their jobs and were denied access to education allegedly for challenging the hereditary chief. There were also human rights complaints about the adoption and application by the chief of a Workfare program and a tenancy agreement document.

Women from X FN asked both the Manitoba and Canadian human rights commissions for assistance with their complaints. They were turned down by Manitoba for jurisdictional reasons and by Canada because of section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Besides employment, education, social assistance, and housing, a chief and council could also, for political reasons, use their power to deny access to other fundamental services such as health and law enforcement on reserve. A complaint would have to fall under one or more prohibited grounds for discrimination written into the CHRA, the Canadian Human Rights Act--and these now currently include age, sex, religion, etc.--in order for the commission to investigate.

However, unlike many other countries and most Canadian provinces, “political belief” is not written into the CHRA. Including political belief would allow complainants recourse and remedies to human rights situations such as those seen on X FN. In addition, such an amendment could help build a more independent band administration and strengthen governance.

Therefore, further to our support of clause 42 in Bill C-7, we would recommend a further amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act to include prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of political belief.

With that, we thank the committee, and we wish it well in its very important work.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Colleagues, we have seven minutes. Is there anyone who wishes two minutes?

The numbers are perfect; we can give you three minutes each, starting with Mr. Pallister.

Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, Canadian Alliance): Thank you.

Thank you very much for your presentation. Of course, you've alluded in your presentation to the situation of Dakota Tipi, which is near and dear to my heart, and in my constituency, of course. It's unfortunate that despite the presence of a majority of first nations governments that are functional and respectful of the rights of the people in their communities, we do see situations like this from time to time. This legislation is designed to deal with all first nations governments but it must take into account the situations that occur in some isolated cases, such as the ones you've alluded to.

What is particularly disturbing to me, and I'd like your comments on it, is the fact that under this proposed legislation the minister will lessen his right to intervene in cases that are dysfunctional to solely those that are financially dysfunctional. What that means is that his intervention in Dakota Tipi could not have happened had this act been in place. The violence and the threats to the rights of the women and other members of the band on that particular reserve would have been unaddressed, except--as the minister has told me in discussion--by the powers of the RCMP or other law enforcement agencies.

Now, how do you feel about that aspect of the act? How do you feel about the degree to which rights might be imperiled for minorities and women on reserves where this situation occurs in future?

· (1300)

Ms. Elizabeth Fleming: Thank you, Mr. Pallister. We didn't mention any of the reserves with whom we've been working because a lot of them have had enough media attention, and they're trying to heal. There can be repercussions from mentioning names.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Let's say theoretically any reserve, then.

Ms. Elizabeth Fleming: It seems to be a document of transition to more self-government and autonomy, and with that will come risks. We are hopeful that the human rights legislation, especially if it's broadened to include political belief, and if there is money and clout given to the Canadian Human Rights Commission and some very strong cases brought forward...then that would send a very strong signal that the human rights side of things would have to be paid attention to.

On the other side, getting an election, I heard what JMAC had to say on that, on ways of having a referendum to decide on whether or not to have an election. That's one thing. On the policing, because it's joint with the province, there isn't as much federal input. But that needs strong oversight and we would probably be recommending things like police commissions and law enforcement review agencies being given more clout. But they're really outside the jurisdiction of this.

We do tend to see this as a piece of transitional legislation, should it go through. That would be the role.

The Chair: Mr. Martin, three minutes.

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

Thank you for your brief.

You used the analogy of the aqueduct, and water being hived off. I found that very useful, but I wonder if you'd agree that even if all of the money got to its intended source....

Let's say it's $7 billion for one million people. That's about $7,000 per person to provide food, clothing, housing, education, health care, roads, and sewage systems. So I wonder if you would agree that part of the fiscal management problems that come into play in some home communities is trying to do the impossible with simply not enough money to service the basic needs of the people they represent--even without Bill C-31 people being added to the communities without any additional funding.

Could you speak to the larger picture of resources to provide for the basic needs of people in communities?

Ms. Elizabeth Fleming: I'm afraid we haven't really researched that part of things. We are aware on a day-to-day basis of the challenges of people, especially when they were cut off social assistance on the reserve, how very bad it was. But we're probably not qualified to talk about the general amounts.

When we looked at the amounts that were missing, that certainly gave cause for concern. Because they were so large, on such a small reserve they would have gone quite far.

You may very well be right that it's underfunded; we're just not qualified to say.

Mr. Pat Martin: [Editor's Note: Technical difficulty]...human rights, and there's another rights issue in this document, Bill C-7, one of which is that under the new rules, they would have to show copies of the community's financial statements, not only to anybody in the band but also to any person who asks. So even if they were running a small business on the reserve, their competition in business could come and demand to see all of their private financial statements.

Do you think that's overstepping a person's right to privacy, or even right to economic development, if your competition has access to your books?

· (1305)

The Chair: Mr. Martin, we've been through this five times and it's the same thing. They do not have access to your books but to your financial statements.

Mr. Pat Martin: What's the difference?

The Chair: There's a big difference. We'll teach you some day.

Mr. Pat Martin: Well, I guess it's differing legal opinions, because our legal opinion says that I'm accurate, and you're arguing with me that I'm not. But I don't think this is either the time or the place to have that discussion.

The Chair: I'm the chair. I make rules. If you don't like them, challenge them.

Mr. Pat Martin: Well, I intend to, for the record.

Ms. Elizabeth Fleming: Through the chair, the way that most freedom of federal information and protection of privacy acts, or the Access to Information Act, work is that certain things come under exemptions. Some are mandatory. Some are discretionary. And there's an ombudsman. That's why we were so pleased to see that the Information Commissioner has been asked by this committee to give some advice on providing those types of guidelines. There surely are areas that are public and that all band members should be able to see.

In fact, I believe Indian Affairs is putting some of those up on the website, which is really an advantage, because then everybody can see, and there's no question. It's routine disclosure. Where third party is involved, on public or private enterprises, then that comes under third party, and that is limited disclosure.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Dromisky, three minutes.

Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.): Thank you very much.

I'm just wondering about the human rights situation. Ever since 1988 I've had more women come to my office from outside, not from my riding only, to deal with these kinds of problems. I don't know how we're ever going to solve this problem when we have women coming in my office who are really upset because they have no rights because of the spiritual guidance within the band. The shaman, or the medicine man, or the leader, or whatever you want to call him, is dictating and controlling the role of the woman in the relationship in the families and within that band.

I sit and I think, “You know, that woman has no rights whatsoever. Someone else is dictating and controlling her life completely and totally.” It's contrary to everything we believe in all the international governance acts we have signed, and treaties and agreements and so forth.

How can we make progress in this area if we have to deal with this type of religious viewpoint?

Ms. Elizabeth Fleming: Actually, I think the situation is pretty positive, because most of the people coming forward have been in favour of this human rights change to section 67. I think there's a willingness to have that change made, at least in the interim, and to allow time for an aboriginal human rights code to be drawn up. I think that's been a very positive thing that's come out of what I've heard of the hearings.

Over time, we will see. Hopefully the Human Rights Commission will be strong enough to at least do some test cases that will really stand out and send messages. And then, if they are not in keeping with the way that aboriginal people want to do things, by that time they will have a code of their own that will have to measure up to international and Canadian standards, or levels of internationally agreed-upon human rights codes, and that would then replace it.

So I think this interim period of time will give aboriginal people time to work on their own code, and they will have also a chance to see how it's interpreted federally. If they don't agree with it, then they will make changes. In the meantime, we hope these women will have a lot more protection; they should be having a lot more protection than they have now.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your contribution.

Our next presenter, Chief Dwayne Blackbird, is scheduled for 1:30. To give him a bit of time to get his presentation in order, we will invite some spontaneous presentations....

You're prepared to present now? That's great.

We welcome, from the Keeseekoowenin Ojibway First Nation, Treaty No. 2, the Riding Mountain Band, Chief Dwayne Blackbird.

Welcome, Chief. I know you will correct me on my pronunciation.

· (1310)

Chief Dwayne Blackbird (Keeseekoowenin Ojibway First Nation, Treaty No. 2 - The Riding Mountain Band): No, that is correct.

The Chair: We welcome you. We have 30 minutes together. We ask you to make your presentation. If you would allow time for questions, we'd appreciate that.

Chief Dwayne Blackbird: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, I would like to thank the committee members for hearing my presentation. That said, I'll get on with it.

I would like to combine my time for my opening and closing remarks by saying our first nation brings to this committee, a representative of our treaty partner, our best greetings. We thank the people of Treaty No. 1 for this opportunity to meet on their lands here at the junction of the Assiniboine and Red rivers, where your ancestors received the permission of our ancestors to build their trading post, Fort Garry. In other words, we are meeting together here as part of a very long historic process.

We remember that process and our part in it. Canada has forgotten, conveniently forgotten, its part in the process. We are here today to remind you.

Only four years after Canada became a consolidated colony of the Imperial Crown of Queen Victoria, Queen Victoria sent her representatives to our treaty territory to enter into an agreement between our respective nations. If we were not a nation, we could have not entered into a treaty. At no place in treaty did we give up our nationhood. We never surrendered our right to govern ourselves. We never invited the Crown to take over our affairs.

We ask you as a committee, tell us where Parliament ever acquired the authority to pass laws that impose on us the conduct of our affairs. If Parliament can't show us the source of this authority, then why is it pretending to exercise it? If Parliament can only point to subsection 91(24) of the British North American Act, which merely repeats the intent of the Royal Proclamation of 1763 that the federal government, not the provincial governments, which relate to first nations and their territories...it is indeed on weak grounds, especially after 1982, when Canada became a country of constitutional supremacy, not parliamentary supremacy.

When we entered into the agreement, Treaty No. 2, there was no Indian Act. When Parliament passed the Indian Act, it did so without our consultation.

There is considerable evidence that Parliament never intended that act to affect us. After all, we had just signed a treaty. In fact, the Indian Act did not apply here for a decade or more. The Government of Canada was wrong when it started to apply the Indian Act to our treaty nations--wrong then, wrong now.

This committee has a responsibility to make recommendations that will ensure that the government does not make this mistake again. You cannot modify colonialism. You cannot amend it. We must oppose it. You must reject it.

Despite the minister's assurances, the proposed governance act will not stop suicides of youth in despair. It will not help the homeless people who crowd the houses on our reserves. It will not bring our education systems up to the same standards enjoyed by our neighbours. In fact, Bill C-7, if passed, will make present situations much worse.

We are told by the minister, “Try it, you'll like it. It's good for you. Trust us.” We have been far too trusting over the years, and look where it has taken us.

When we entered into the treaty, as historical records will show, we were a prosperous people. The settlers bought horses from us and employed our skills and knowledge. They sent their children to our schools and attended our churches. Then the government imposed the iron fist of the Indian agent. He took total control over our reserves and lives. The government must take full responsibility for converting us from a prosperous people into the poverty from which we've suffered a few decades ago.

For the last two decades the government has loosened the iron fist a bit, and permitted us to administer our own affairs. We have been able to improve the situation as much as we could, and we take full credit for that. Now the government wants to tighten the fist again through Bill C-7.

· (1315)

It is simultaneously obscene, ridiculous, and totally unacceptable that at the dawn of the 21st century we would have to be here as supplicants, defending ourselves from colonialism. It is obscene that our children would have to witness us having to protect ourselves in this way, that they will have to live their lives as we have, knowing that they must constantly have to be on the defensive, alert for impositions, and that our elders would be subject to this indignity.

I join other leaders and other peoples who are not willing to be humiliated in this way. In other words, I'm drawing the line. The humiliation stops here.

I believe if Canadians fully understood what was happening they would be ashamed and embarrassed--ashamed and embarrassed about the past and ashamed and embarrassed about what their government is trying to do today, particularly with Bill C-7.

I ask this committee, all political parties, all Canadians in their rich diversity, to join my treaty nation in a vision for the future, a hopeful and optimistic vision of our children and your children working together. We are both losers every day when we are not allowed to take our unique and distinct place as sovereign treaty nations sharing our territories with you.

Our treaty nations have rights to protect. We have our respective territories to protect. We have our people to protect. We have our future to build. Our treaty is our foundation for our relationship with you. Our treaty is your foundation for your relationship with us, your foundation for living here in Canada.

If we are not successful, if Parliament and the government continue to behave in a colonial fashion, our children will be here the same way that I am here to protect our rights, for their people, their territory. This is not going to go away. Why do you wish to leave your children this burden when it is within your grasp to put colonialism to rest?

When you leave Winnipeg to go on with your work and eventually return to your homes and families, we hope that you travel well and that everything is fine when you reach your final destination.

I thank the committee members for hearing my presentation. I am prepared to answer any questions you might have.

Thank you.

Voices: Hear, hear!

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We will have a four-minute round.

Mr. Pallister, you have four minutes for questions and answers both.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Thank you very much, Chief Blackbird. As usual, you speak from the heart, and I appreciate your honesty.

I think the problem that you've stated so well is a problem that troubles me when I review this legislation. It's almost as if the drafters of this legislation started from here and didn't learn anything from the failures of the past. And I think that's the difficulty that many of the people I've spoken to have with the legislation, that it doesn't seem to recognize that the approaches of the past were done top-down, and inflicted on people--the principal reason that most of those approaches failed.

This legislation in many respects seems to be repeating that approach, and that is probably, in my heart, the largest part of my reason for feeling so strongly that we should be pulling back from this proposal.

When we talk about accountability, the government communications people seem to be promoting this as a way to create accountability with legislation. Can you give me examples of initiatives that you've undertaken and that you're aware of--there are so many, I know--where accountability at the first nations level is pursued by your leadership now?

Chief Dwayne Blackbird: For me, being from the Keeseekoowenin Ojibway First Nation, it was the people who made me accountable to have transparency and accountability within our leadership. It was the people who made me accountable. It wasn't Ottawa who made the people accountable.

I hope nobody gets me wrong here. I'm not opposed to transparency and accountability, so don't get me wrong, but what I'm saying here is that we never gave up that right, our sovereignty, our nationhood. In this day and age, for external forces to come into my community and tell me what to do, I find it very offensive.

I come here seeking a brand new relationship, starting right from scratch, with implementing my treaty. As I said, the Indian Act was in place.... I'm from Riding Mountain, and our lifestyle was a very prosperous one up until 1930, when they really started to implement the Indian Act. Other than that, for 25 years I had no communication whatsoever with the Department of Indian Affairs. The only thing we ask them is, when is treaty time? Other than that, we built our own houses, we built our churches, we built our own community, ourselves, with our own resources.

Ever since 1930, we've been put into a dependency state. I want to put an end to this dependency and start to get on with the implementation of my treaty.

You know, it was my great-great-grandfather who signed treaty. He was here at the signing of Treaty No. 1. Then he went back to my area and signed Treaty No. 2. So that's what it means today to me. It's my great-great-grandfather's will that I come here to protect. As I said, there was nothing in that treaty agreement that took away from us.

· (1320)

Mr. Brian Pallister: And it's all well-meaning, right? This is the other thing; a lot of these initiatives were designed by people who probably never were on a reserve or in an aboriginal community--but they were well-meaning. Many chiefs have mentioned to me the example of the welfare system itself. The welfare system had good intentions but it actually hurt more than helped.

Has that been your experience?

Chief Dwayne Blackbird: Treaty was never meant to create dependency.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Chief Blackbird, for a very moving brief.

You commented on the iron fist of the Indian agent. It's interesting; I was just recently on a reserve that's under third-party management, and I was looking at their third-party management documentation. Sure enough, right on the front page it says, this agreement is a contract between XYZ First Nation and the Indian agent.

So third-party managers are now called the new Indian agents, which is offensive to me, as it should be to everybody concerned. Even more offensive is the fact that this guy's fee was $30,000 a month, and he had never set foot on the reserve. He didn't think it was safe to come onto that reserve, he said, or that was his excuse.

I think I would ask you to restate, with what little time I am given to question you.... I guess one of the most positive things about having this First Nations Governance Act come up is that it gives you an opportunity to restate what the real wishes would be--namely, to reaffirm the treaty process, to fund the treaty process, and to conclude or implement the intent of the treaty process.

Can you speak to that as the real priority of the people?

Chief Dwayne Blackbird: I have always wanted to discuss my treaty with the government, but every time I raise my treaty, it seems to create paranoia. I don't think they fully understand what my treaty means. And yet that treaty brought newcomers here to share our territory with them.

I don't think the average person among the general public even knows what the treaty really means. And yet that was an agreement made between my forefathers and the newcomers.

Today, I am not obligated to change that original treaty agreement. As much as this is where they say that we gave away everything, in this treaty agreement, when I myself look at the agreement, it says nothing about that.

My children came here with me today, to participate in a rally, because of my concerns when I talk with them about what this is all about. We can't be led astray from the original agreement that my forefathers made. We want to get on with the implementation of that treaty. That treaty brings equality. It talks about equality, making sure that we have access to the programs and services that are available to first nation people and making sure that we have access to resources.

You know, what treaty really means is that this land was meant to be shared with the newcomers. We knew that. We knew that we couldn't start a fight and beat off the newcomers. Our people were very generous people, I would like to say. They had a lot of goodwill in their hearts to share this great country with the newcomers.

My grandfather says that when the newcomers first came here, they had a tough time the first few winters. They didn't even have a place to settle down to. Keeseekoowenin, the first nation I represent, and my grandfather went out and made sure that the newcomers had the basic necessities to contend with the winters they were faced with.

Today we are labelled as burdens on the Canadian taxpayer. There has been no respect, and yet I know that we were the original landowners.

· (1325)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Hubbard.

Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good afternoon to you, Chief.

You mentioned 1930; could you explain a little bit further to our committee what exactly happened, and why that was a watershed year for you and your first nations people?

Chief Dwayne Blackbird: They transferred the natural resources over to the province in 1930. And Riding Mountain, which we know as Riding Mountain National Park, is where the traditional people live. At that time, Canada was really starting to implement the Indian Act on our people. Prior to that, there was no Indian agent around. There was nobody trying to control our day-to-day activities up until 1930.

I know that because out west, in Calgary, they were having the Calgary Stampede, or just trying to get it going. There was letter-writing back and forth to the government, saying, you know, we want the first nations people to participate with their headdresses and everything like that. The Canadian government wrote them letters back, saying, don't do that; we're trying to end the traditional lifestyle.

That's when they really started implementing the Indian Act on us, in 1930, when they transferred our resources over to the Province of Manitoba. It became a national park after that.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: We're looking today mainly at Bill C-7, but we also have the land claims. Does your first nation have a land claim in terms of--

Chief Dwayne Blackbird: We have specific land claims that we've been working on for a number of years in regard to our traditional territory. We've been successful in bringing a few of them to conclusion, but we're still working on some.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: And that's been going on for a long period of time, your land claim?

Chief Dwayne Blackbird: Yes, ever since we were booted out of Riding Mountain National Park.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: With that, are you optimistic that sometime, in three years or five years, it will be concluded? Are you making progress?

Chief Dwayne Blackbird: Oh, yes, we've been making progress. First there was no progress, then all of a sudden progress, probably because of my steady prodding of the system.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: In terms of your people who live off reserve, is that currently about a third of your people?

Chief Dwayne Blackbird: About a third, yes.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Are they mainly here in the city of Winnipeg?

Chief Dwayne Blackbird: No, they're spread out--Vancouver, Alberta, right across.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: One provision of Bill C-7 would be that the people off reserve would be allowed to vote in your reserve elections. How would that work?

Chief Dwayne Blackbird: That's happening already.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: They already are allowed to vote?

Chief Dwayne Blackbird: I have always been of the view that our treaty rights are portable. When we step off the reserve, it's almost as though we have no rights, but I'm of the opinion that our treaty rights are portable no matter where we are in this country.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: And your people living off reserve generally maintain connections back and forth with--

Chief Dwayne Blackbird: Oh, yes, with family connections.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: And family connections are usually quite close. I mean, that is one of the issues that has come up--how could this work in terms of trying to approach people scattered throughout various parts of the country? So you do have obligations and you do have connections with them.

When you get educational moneys for post-graduate or post-secondary school, do you get enough to satisfy your people, and some off-reserve get benefits too--

· (1330)

Chief Dwayne Blackbird: We have a post-secondary waiting list, just like everybody else.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: So you do have a waiting list.

Chief Dwayne Blackbird: We could probably use more post-secondary money to alleviate that backlog.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We have time for a three-minute round.

Mr. Pallister.

Mr. Brian Pallister: I'm just curious; with regard to the post-secondary waiting list--and we can investigate the funding levels in more detail another time, but I understand they haven't been increased very significantly for a long time--have you found the list has been growing at all?

Chief Dwayne Blackbird: Oh, yes. Just in Manitoba somewhere around 10,000 post-secondary students are waiting to get a post-secondary education. So there is a definite need to increase our education funding.

I guess that's why, as I said in my presentation, we want to be in a position where we can have the same opportunities as our neighbours have.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Sure. We in the official opposition have been advancing the idea, which was brought to us by a number of leaders like you, that, yes, there should be an appeal or redress for people who have concerns, so they can deal with them in an independent, arm's length fashion.

So I'm just curious to know how you feel about that. The model that the government is proposing in this bill will set up potentially 600 different redress officers or complaints officers in each band. How do you feel about that?

Chief Dwayne Blackbird: I guess our real problem is that our people, when they should settle their problems right at home, instead go out crying to everybody else to get involved in our internal affairs. That's bringing external forces into the picture. If our people want to address the issues, they have to address them themselves, within the community, not go out and look for some saviour.

So that's our problem today--our people are running all over, wanting someone to help them with the local issues, and yet it's within their own capacity to settle their local issues.

Mr. Brian Pallister: So you want to encourage more individual involvement by band members in the affairs of the band, for a healthier--

Chief Dwayne Blackbird: Yes. That's why I say, we never relinquished or gave up our nationhood or our sovereignty. Let us deal with our people.

Right now, just like anybody else, we have a few people out there saying it's rampant in first nation communities. But that is not true. You know, we have a few people--just like any other governments out there--who are upset, but it's not the majority. And I would like to mention that.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Chair, speaking about money, the federal government spent over $10 million in the consultation process that nobody thinks met the definition of real consultation. They really just told people what they were going to do to them. They estimate it will cost $110 million per year to try to force these changes on first nation communities who neither want them nor need them. And we believe that's terribly low. We think this could be the next great gun registry fiasco. It could cost billions of dollars to impose these rules on people.

I guess I'd ask you, could that money be better used if it were put toward the implementation of the treaty process, working toward that with the real priorities you've brought to this table?

Chief Dwayne Blackbird: That money could have been better used. What's sad about it is that it was intended for first nations people, and here we have the minister using it for his consultation. It probably took away from our housing, from our education--you name it. That money could have been better spent, working with us. Don't get me wrong here, I want to work with whoever, in creating a new relationship, a new partnership, but under my terms; we're obligated when somebody is handing us something.

I'm serious here; don't get me wrong. I'm looking for a new relationship, a new partnership--you name it. I'm not here to bash everything that everybody's been talking about. But I want to be involved in the creation of that relationship and not have somebody else draw all the terms and conditions of that relationship. That's what it's all about.

· (1335)

Mr. Brian Pallister: Well said.

Thank you.

The Chair: Ms. Karetak-Lindell.

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

First of all, how large is your band?

Chief Dwayne Blackbird: I think we have a total of 851.

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: And most of those are on reserve?

Chief Dwayne Blackbird: The total is probably 600-plus.

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: We heard from different people at other hearings of how they were affected by Bill C-31, of how there were no dollars given to the band to help bring the new membership in and provide housing and education. How much has it affected your band in terms of being able to supply services?

Chief Dwayne Blackbird: In our community we've been supplying Bill C-31 new members with housing. We've been very accommodating to those people. We haven't shut the doors on them.

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: I know that the bands haven't shut the doors, but the fact that they haven't gotten extra money to help with those new people being added to their band lists has created financial difficulties, possibly making the Indian Affairs office turn them into third management.

I just wondered how much of a hardship that has been for you.

Chief Dwayne Blackbird: Out of the membership we have on reserve, about 40 or 50 are non-band members that we're providing service for. We get reimbursed by the province a month or so down the road.

Right now we have a housing backlog. We have probably 80 or 90 names of people who need housing. But we've been accommodating to everyone with the very little money that we get. We're building homes of $100,000-and-some, and we're getting funding of only $27,000 for infrastructure.

We're doing as best as we possibly can with the very little funding we get to provide basic necessities in the community. So we definitely need more funding.

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: You mentioned in your presentation that you are in the process of doing self-government negotiations. From what I understand of Bill C-7, those bands would be exempt from having to go under Bill C-7 if they're already in the process of doing self-government negotiations.

Chief Dwayne Blackbird: I'm not sure; you may have misquoted me. We were talking about specific claims, settling some specific claims. I wasn't talking about negotiating the self-government model.

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: Okay. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Chief, there are two minutes left. We invite you to make closing remarks, if you wish.

Chief Dwayne Blackbird: I thank the committee members for hearing my presentation. I went through it quite hastily, but I do have copies for the committee members.

Have a safe journey home, and thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much. Mr. Pallister was correct in saying that you speak from the heart. We felt that.

We'll now invite, from the Peguis Indian Band, Chief Louis Stevenson, and the band adviser, Mr. Lloyd Stevenson.

Welcome, Chief. We have 30 minutes together. We invite you to make a presentation. Hopefully we'll allow time for questions from members.

Please proceed.

Chief Louis J. Stevenson (Peguis Indian Band): First of all, I want to say thanks for accepting our request to appear before the committee on a matter of great importance that may affect the lives of our people.

My name is Chief Louis Stevenson, and I've been the Chief of the Peguis reserve for the last 22 years. We're Cree and Ojibway, and in 1871 we signed Treaty No. 1. We have a population of approximately 7,000 people.

In the history of first nations people and their interaction with government policy and legislation, their opposition to the First Nations Governance Act has reached an inordinately high level. The strong opposition and deep concern has been voiced by virtually all of the duly elected leadership of first nations peoples at the community level, at the provincial level, and certainly at the national level.

Decisions to oppose the First Nations Governance Act were achieved through properly conducted fora, through quorums and resolutions. In essence, the leaders represent the views of the people, and the process of articulating those views and decisions are unassailable.

It is not surprising that first nations leaders are vehemently opposed to this proposed legislation. This legislation threatens to undermine, restrict, delegate, and erode first nations rights of self-government, and it certainly offends section 35 of the Constitution.

When the rights of the first nations are threatened, it is only natural that the leadership will exercise its duty to protect those fundamental rights.

History confirms the fact that first nations peoples were deprived and dispossessed of their homeland and their country, and were sequestered into unproductive lands called reserves. If these reserves were found to be productive, with top-class soils, as in our experience, these reserves were effectively surrendered through illegal means or measures. The first nation reserves were further pushed into lands that are virtually rock, swamp, and muskeg. Such was the travesty for peoples who once owned and possessed the rich lands in Canada.

In addition to the loss of their lands, their religion, language, and culture were restricted or forbidden with the threat of severe punishment. We all experienced that in the residential school system especially.

The democratic rights of first nations people were never recognized until the Canadian bill of rights was passed in 1960. It is indeed ironic and tragic that the indigenous peoples who were here since time immemorial were the very last to be allowed to vote in federal elections.

When Treaty No. 1 was signed between first nations and the federal government, it was the understanding of the first nations people that they would have access to the natural resources of the land, and at the very least these resources would be shared equally. Through legislative acts, the first nations peoples were gradually denied access and therefore did not receive their fair share of these bountiful resources.

The last door to these resources was effectively closed when the federal government transferred the natural resources to the Province of Manitoba in 1930. The Province of Manitoba continues to follow the same agenda of denying access to these resources despite the treaty arrangements.

The sampling of these rights that were lost or denied are not exhaustive. Suffice it to say, land rights, religious rights, cultural rights, rights to resources, and democratic rights that were denied or restricted all lead to a form of constructive genocide.

· (1340)

These rights are sacred to the people of the world, especially to peoples who have the right to be protected by human rights laws and to have their right to self-government and self-determination respected and affirmed. The First Nations Governance Act is the latest assault on our fundamental right to self-government. Certainly the first nation people will utilize all available means to protect and preserve that right.

In his presentation to the standing committee on January 27, 2003, Minister Nault stated that his department had consulted widely with the people most affected by this act. That statement is totally untrue. In this province, the consulting road show has not visited one first nation community. Futile attempts were made to conduct consultation at some towns; there was little or no success. The leaders at the local, provincial, and national levels have all unequivocally stated that these consultations have not met the standard established through the courts.

As the duly elected leader of my first nation, which has a population of over 7,000 people, consultation has not occurred.

The Minister of Indian Affair's fiduciary duty arises from a number of sources, but the two main sources are section 91.24 of the Constitution Act, 1867, and section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

The Supreme Court of Canada in the Guerin case found that the fiduciary obligation arose from the exercise of Crown authority and discretionary power in a manner that required the Crown, as fiduciary, to act with “utmost of loyalty to its principal” and in the “best interest” of the principal or beneficiary. The Supreme Court further stated that the fiduciary must meet a “strict standard of conduct”, and that to do otherwise would be unconscionable.

The Sparrow case was the first court case to address the application of subsection 35(1) of the Constitution, where the courts found that the obligation of the Crown toward aboriginal people is more onerous than that owed to other beneficiaries. As the fiduciary duty is now entrenched in a constitutional setting, that duty limits and directs the Crown's legislative capacity where the Crown must justify any infringement of an aboriginal right.

What is the scope and depth of this onerous obligation? The court stated:

The Government is required to bear the burden of justifying any legislation which has some negative effect on any aboriginal rights protected under Section 35(1).

In Delgamuukw, the Supreme Court of Canada created a broader fiduciary standard for the Crown. The court established a list of fiduciary duties, including the duty to safeguard aboriginal title, the duty to accommodate aboriginal title, and the duty to bargain in good faith.

The second duty is further separated into three further duties: one, the duty to give priority to aboriginal title; two, the duty to consult; and three, the duty to compensate. The court stated, “there is always a duty to consultation”. This consultation must be in good faith and with the intention of substantially addressing the concerns of aboriginal peoples whose lands are at issue.

In the same paragraph, the court stated:

In most cases, it will be significantly deeper than mere consultation. Some cases may even require the full consent of an aboriginal nation, particularly when provinces enact hunting and fishing regulations in relation to aboriginal lands.

In terms of guidance, Delgamuukw provides three principles for consultation: one, it must substantially address the concerns of aboriginal peoples; two, it must be conducted in good faith; and three, it will be significantly deeper than mere consultation.

The standard of conduct for a fiduciary is a high standard that also incorporates the laws of equity as well as constitutional standards. Legislation such as the First Nations Governance Act must meet that standard.

In a recent British Columbia Court of Appeal case, the Halfway River First Nation, the court provided guidance on the Crown's fiduciary obligation as it relates to the question of consultation. A logging permit on traditional lands was quashed by the court because there was not adequate and meaningful consultation with the band. Here the Crown failed in its duty to consult. The case is unique, as the duty to consult also rests with the provincial crown.

· (1345)

The court stressed the point that consultation was a substantive requirement under the test for justification:

As laid down in the cases of justification, the Crown must satisfy all aspects of the test if it is to succeed. Thus, even though there was sufficiently important legislative objective, the petitioners' rights were infringed as little as possible, and the effects of the infringement are outweighed by the benefits to be derived from the government's conduct, justification of the infringement has not been established because the Crown failed in its duty to consult. It would be inconsistent with the honour and integrity of the Crown to find justification where the Crown has not met that duty.

In essence, the court stated that if the Crown can prove a valid federal objective, even if the effects of the intrusions are outweighed by the resulting benefits, it would still fail because the standard of the duty to consult was not met.

Indian Affairs, the federal Crown, may argue that the duty to consult does not arise until a court of competent jurisdiction has decided on the existence and scope of the aboriginal right in dispute. The British Columbia Court of Appeal addressed this issue in Taku River Tlingit First Nation v. Ringstad.

The pre-infringement duty was clarified by the court, stating there was an obligation to consult prior to any court deciding on the existence of the aboriginal right:

To accept the Crown's position that the obligation to consult is only triggered when an aboriginal right has been established in court proceedings would ignore the substance of what the Supreme Court has said, not only Sparrow, but in earlier decisions.... Indeed if the Crown's position were accepted, it would have the effect of robbing section 35.1 of much of its constitutional significance.

Finally, in the Supreme Court of Canada, Justice Lamer in Regina v. Van der Peet stated that the fiduciary relationship of the Crown and aboriginal peoples also means that where is any doubt or ambiguity with regard to what falls within the scope of section 35, such doubt or ambiguity must be resolved in favour of aboriginal peoples.

The fiduciary duty and obligation have high standards, and as a result, the Minister of Indian Affairs has not met those standards. His consultation strategy has not met the legal standards of adequacy. The consultation process is fundamentally flawed in that it purports to undermine the nation-to-nation relationship; it did not consult with Indian bands; and it did not consult with the bona fide leaders of the first nations peoples.

The right of self-government is inherent in its source in that the origins are found within the indigenous peoples or the first nations peoples as a contemporary manifestation of the powers that they originally possessed as nations and peoples. This right does not flow from a constitutional grant. It is an inherent right and not a derivative right.

The inherent right to self-government has been recognized and affirmed in subsection 35(1) of the Constitution. If the first nations peoples are to seek protection of their self-government rights under that subsection, that protection also limits the scope and exercise of self-government.

From a constitutional perspective, self-government under subsection 35(1) does not warrant complete sovereign or independent state powers. Thus, subsection 35(1) does circumscribe the scope of self-government. In this sphere, first nation self-governments are immune to indiscriminate federal or provincial interference.

Many first nations assert they still possess and retain their sovereign status, complete with the right to self-determination as peoples under international norms. Suffice it to say, that assertion will not be discussed here. Within the protection of subsection 35(1), self-government has been circumscribed to a certain extent. However, the circumscription cannot trample on self-government rights that are at the core of first nations jurisdiction.

The core elements include: matters that are of vital concern to the life and welfare of a particular aboriginal people, its culture and identity; matters that do not have a major impact on adjacent jurisdictions; and matters that are not otherwise the object of transcendent federal or provincial concern.

· (1350)

The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples report provided a partial list of the core of aboriginal jurisdiction. That partial list includes: constitution and government institutions; citizenship and membership; elections and reference; access to and residence in a territory; lands, waters, sea ice and natural resources; economic life, including commerce, labour, agriculture, grazing, hunting, trapping, fishing, forestry, mining, and management of natural resources; operations of business, trades, and professions; transfer and management of public moneys and other assets; taxation; family matters, marriage, divorce, adoption, and child custody; property rights, education; social services; health; language, culture, values, and traditions; policing; and public works.

Those areas are the very pith and substance of self-government, and no other government is allowed to trespass in this area.

These internal governance matters of first nations are included in the First Nations Governance Act. The Minister of Indian Affairs simply cannot tread into this jurisdictional space. The First Nations Governance Act attempts to prescribe how internal matters of first nations governance ought to be. This is a direct infringement upon the aboriginal right of self-government.

In a related intrusion, the First Nations Governance Act attempts to circumscribe self-government to a much narrower scope than that of subsection 35(1). What is being offered is a form of delegated powers, which is inconsistent with and repugnant to the inherent right of self-government. It is patently clear that the governance act has constructively and directly violated section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

The aboriginal justice inquiry of Manitoba stated that because Indian bands have borne the burdens of legislation over the years and tried to work with a federal bureaucracy that itself depends upon the legislation, it should not be interpreted as acceptance or acquiescence by aboriginal people to a derivative form of self-government dependent upon delegated powers from a federal authority.

The inquiry report further states that the aboriginal rights to self-government cannot be met through a federal-provincial commitment to delegate their current authority. It is a matter of recognizing that aboriginal people have the legal right to exercising constitutionally protected powers on aboriginal territory.

The First Nations Governance Act makes reference to the Constitution Act, 1982, where the charter provisions will apply to first nation governments. The Constitution is very explicit on what governments are affected by the charter--namely, the federal government and the provincial governments:

This Charter applies

(a) to the Parliament and Government of Canada in respect to all matters within the authority of Parliament including all matters relating to the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories; and

(b) to the legislature and government of each province in respect of all matters with the authority of the legislature of each province.

Further, aboriginal and treaty rights are protected by section 25 of the Constitution. Self-government, which is an aboriginal right, is protected along with all other treaty and aboriginal rights:

^ç	The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from aboriginal Treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada.

If a first nation and its government are to be impacted by the Constitution and the charter, there must be a proper amendment to the Constitution that expressly makes that allowance. Naturally, any government that is affected by the Constitution will also have to be included in the amending formula. The general formula under section 38 calls for two-thirds of the provinces, of which 50% of the population must reside. This amending formula is commonly called the “7 and 50” formula. The amendment of Canada's Constitution is such an onerous task that it is not surprising the Minister of Indian Affairs attempted to do an end run around his constitutional requirements.

If first nations women do have a concern about their rights under the self-government provisions of section 35, subsection 35(4) states, “Aboriginal and treaty rights referred to Subsection (1) are guaranteed equally to male and female persons”. It should be noted that 50% of the Peguis First Nation council are women.

· (1355)

The First Nations Governance Act is a legislative intrusion into an area that is deemed sacred to a nation of peoples--the right to govern themselves under self-government. This legislative trespass attempts to undermine one of the cornerstones of first nations society. First nations have had the right to self-government since time immemorial. That right will be protected forever. The right to self-government is a fundamental freedom that all indigenous peoples possess. To abrogate that freedom would be a gross injustice for any first nation, and certainly the offending party or governments would be culpable in the international sense.

The initiation of the First Nations Governance Act was flawed from the beginning. The Minister of Indian Affairs failed to discharge his fiduciary duty, especially his duty to consult, thus breaching section 35 of the Constitution and breaching the standards set out by the courts in Canada. The violation of section 35 and violation of self-government rights must not go unheeded.

Members of the aboriginal affairs standing committee who appreciate and understand this violation must do their utmost to exercise their trust-like duty and obligations and prevent this constitutional trespass and constitutional travesty from happening. The omission or commission will be a testament to your legacy on this very important matter.

Therefore, it is recommended that the members of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources make every effort to quash this offensive and repugnant piece of legislation.

In addition to that presentation, I just want to say, you probably will never know what it feels like to be governed under a special act designed especially for your own people. I think you'd have to be an Indian to understand the effect it has on the lives of your people.

You know, virtuous Canada has a good record of championing human rights around the world. I think they were responsible in great part for getting rid of one of the most racist policies in the world, apartheid in South Africa, and for recognizing the rights of the black people in that country. Canada even went to the rescue of people whose rights were being violated in Germany, under Hitler. Even today Canada champions rights in other parts of the world.

So it's offensive and disappointing that after 127 years, Canada still has one of the most racist pieces of legislation on their books in the House of Commons, that being the Indian Act, and now devising this First Nations Governance Act.

If you look at the history and the conditions of our people today, it's been nothing less than a disaster. By taking total control over the rights of our people to control their people, their land, and resources....

You only have to look at the various amendments under the Indian Act. For a while the definition of a person was anybody other than an Indian. It's kind of shocking for people to realize that this has been part of the legislation of the Government of Canada. Then there was the experience of the residential schools, which took away our language, our culture, and our identity, and tried to assimilate us into society. Our people are still reeling from the impact of that experience.

Then there was the baby scoop, when the Children's Aid Society in this province scattered our kids all over the world. They're still trying to find their way back home, and their families. As well, Bill C-31 was supposed to remove discrimination. You know, it returned the people, we got the people back, but we didn't get the resources to provide the same services and benefits to which they were entitled.

So the discrimination is still there. They underestimated the interest and the impact. I believe in this province they estimated that there would be a 21% returnee rate to the reserves. It's more like 100%. If people have a right that's being restored, they want to enjoy that right 100%, for what it means.

¸ (1400)

And it goes on, even with the recent act that was passed to allow on- and off-reserve members to vote. I mean, they have a right to vote, but they don't get the same benefits and same services. It's only half a right. It's a hollow right, when it comes right down to it, if you only have the right to vote and you don't have the right to any of the other services and benefits because the government hasn't recognized it, and they only fund us based on on-reserve population.

You may wonder why it might be offensive to us as Indian people, but supposing I suggested that different ethnic members of Parliament created acts to control their own people. For instance, there's Rey Pagtakhan; why wouldn't they create an act to control the Filipino people in this country, a Filipino act? What about other people from different ethnic backgrounds? There are people of Chinese descent sitting in the House of Commons as members of Parliament. How would they feel if it were suggested that they create a Chinese act to control all the Chinese people in Canada? There are people from France sitting in the House of Commons. Why don't they create an act to control all the French people in Canada, or Quebec?

That would be so horrendous, so offensive, but the members of Parliament here today, and those who sit in the House of Commons from different parties, think nothing of controlling an act specifically to control Indian people in this country.

I mean, what gives anybody the right to control our lives, to say what is best for our people when it comes to land, people, and resources? What gives anyone the right to dictate to our people what those terms should be? That's a God-given right that belongs to nobody else but our people themselves, and we want nothing less than what the rest of Canadians enjoy--security and comfort and opportunities.

Is it just because someone along the way implanted this notion that because they were different that were mentally superior to our people? We have the same capacities as anyone else. We can decide what is best for ourselves.

We as leaders are elected under a democratic system, through secret ballot voting, and we are elected by the majority of our people. And yet Minister Nault has the audacity to suggest that chiefs are only speaking for chiefs. We are speaking on behalf of the people who elect us into our office. We're elected in our own right, no different from any member of the legislative assembly or the member of Parliament in this country. I mean, members of Parliament are speaking on behalf of their constituents. Well, so are we, as leaders. Why is there such a double standard when it comes down to the lives and interests of our people? We want nothing less.

You know, if history has taught us anything, it's that it is about time they gave our people the chance to make their own decisions and to run their own lives, to be responsible for their own interests, to control their own lands, their own people, and their own resources. If you think the Government of Canada is being generous by offering this governance act to give us some delegated power to enhance our lives...it's no different from their offering an infected blanket to keep our people warm.

Voices: Hear, hear!

Chief Louis Stevenson: Those are my comments. Thanks.

¸ (1405)

The Chair: Thank you very much. There is not enough time for questions. We thank you very much for an excellent presentation, sir.

I now invite to the table the First Nations Accountability Coalition--Leona Freed, Inez Mousseau, and Sonia Scott.

Welcome. We have 30 minutes together. We invite you to make a presentation, which hopefully can be followed by questions.

Ms. Leona Freed (First Nations Accountability Coalition): First of all, I would like to apologize if I offend anybody here today with my choice of words, but we are speaking on behalf of thousands of Accountability Coalition members in Canada.

I will give you a bit of background. I am Leona Freed, and Sonia Scott and Inez Mousseau are with me. We are with the First Nations Accountability Coalition of Manitoba, which targets accountability, democracy, and equality by the aboriginal leadership.

In April of 1997, our organization did a presentation to the aboriginal standing committee on self-government, and how the first nations people at band level were not ready for it. We attended in total 22 meetings in Canada with our first nation people. We have complaints about the aboriginal leadership from 215 reserves about: abuse of authority; services are nil or next to non-existent; fixed elections; bribery; outrageous salaries; no democracy; no accountability of any type; and no equality.

Many of our reserves are ruled dictatorship-style by the aboriginal leadership. Most aboriginal leaders undermine, dictate, and impose third world living conditions on the first nation people. If the leaders don't like the Indian Act, they then revert to band custom, which means to make up the rules as you go along. Again, we have many community members who are not consulted before their community reverts to band custom.

There are numerous all-chiefs organizations in Canada who allege they represent the first nations people. These people are there to take care of the chiefs' interests, not ordinary Indians'. These national and provincial chiefs organizations do not represent our thousands of Accountability Coalition members and they do not represent some first nations people who are not part of our organization. We do not have representatives who go internationally to mislead foreign countries about representation, or to bite the hand that feeds them.

To date, our Manitoba Accountability Coalition office has complaints from first nations people from approximately 331 reserves in Canada who want accountability, democracy, and equality from their aboriginal leadership. The aboriginal leaders cry for self-government and self-sufficiency without the realization that self-government means taxes and self-sufficiency means no more federal handouts.

Six years later, since April of 1997, none or very few changes have been made in many of these same communities. The people are still living in despair, squalor, and third world living conditions. The onus cannot all be put on the federal government but the lack of enforced accountability measures for the aboriginal leaders that are not enacted in legislation. We will not be ready for self-government until such standards, rules, policies, and changes to the Indian Act have been made for the first nation people of Canada.

We believe the intention of the governance act is to make native government effective, responsible, and accountable to their community members. These changes will take the power away from the aboriginal leadership and restore it to the community members. Most aboriginal leaders who strongly object to the changes are terrified of this and are the ones who do not want to be accountable to the people of Canada. The community members are told these changes will extinguish our treaty rights, but our treaty rights are protected by the Canadian Constitution.

As I have stated many times nationally, we have loggers, backyard mechanics, waiters, labourers, alcoholics, drug addicts, or illiterate people getting in as chief or council. In Canada we have first nation community members alleging that their chief, some councillors, band staff, and Native Child and Family Service workers are cokeheads or cocaine addicts. The people want to see drug tests and alcohol assessments performed on all candidates for chief or councillor. After the election, mandatory periodic drug tests and alcoholic assessments should be done on all staff who work for the first nation community, including chief and council.

These are the people who are supposed to operate and manage a million- or multi-million-dollar business such as a band office. This cannot be done without set standards in place. We believe this is one of the reasons why too many first nation communities go into financial co-management, third party, or receivership.

We have aboriginal leaders who are charged with indictable offences from impaired driving up to murder. These people should be suspended from all duties or resign immediately until all charges have been dealt with. There are aboriginal leaders or their staff who are incarcerated and still in office. While in jail they still continue to collect their salaries and keep their position as role model or chief.

¸ (1410)

The people who are to operate and manage our first nation communities must be drug-free; have an education and skills; have training in business administration; and have sobriety. Otherwise, we will not reach self-government and self-sufficiency.

Our First Nations Accountability Coalition members have come up with some recommendations. They want, for future candidates for chief or council, a grade 12 education; at least one to two years training in business administration at a recognized college, etc.; a criminal record check and child abuse registry check; and mandatory periodic drug tests and alcoholic assessments done before and after elections.

With regard to elections in first nation communities, since the Corbiere ruling, our office has had complaints from approximately eight first nation community members regarding bribery, fixed elections, people voting anywhere from one to six times, dead people voting, minors voting, ballot boxes removed from sites, off- and on-reserve members turned away from the polls without a valid reason, and intimidation tactics. Two first nation communities in Manitoba claim hereditary custom, meaning no elections for leadership. This violates our democratic rights under the Canadian Constitution.

Our recommendations are the following: elections run by or similar to Elections Canada; democracy should be restored by elections in the two hereditary custom communities in Manitoba; at the first nation polls, it should be mandatory to show two pieces of ID, one being a picture ID, and a social insurance number to deter voting of up to six times; and chief and council should not have signing authority or access to purchase orders.

On the decentralization of federal funding, all federal funding should be decentralized and moneys should be distributed in lump sums to education, housing, social services, health, etc. The transfer and flexibility of band funds from program to program should cease immediately. Committees should be set up for each program, and chief and council should not have a say in the program funding. Many aboriginal leaders claim that over 90% of the first nations are in compliance with the audits. Any business can be in compliance with an audit provided there is no scope to the audit. It does not reveal exactly how and where the money is spent. All the financial audits reveal is the amount of money going in and out of the reserve. Such services as housing and education are treaty rights, and first nation jurisdictions. Only a select few receive either of these two services. If funds are decentralized, services can be administered fairly to the community members. This would deter squandering of band funds, exorbitant salaries, exotic vacations, gambling sprees, and international trips. The community members would receive the services they are rightfully entitled to.

One of the recommendations we had forgotten to put in this brief--I don't know how we could have, it's so important--is that we would like to see the per diems and the honorariums cease for all chiefs and councils. They do not need a per diem and honorarium if they are on salary and have travel expenses.

The aboriginal leaders state that the Liberal government continues to use a colonized approach by dictating to the first nation people what they think is in our best interest. They also say that Minister Robert Nault is not consulting with the first nations people in the changes to the First Nations Governance Act. Some of these aboriginal leaders would not allow Mr. Nault's people into the community to consult with the first nations members on the act.

The leaders also state that they are representatives of the first nations people, as they were elected in, but if elections in the first nations communities were run by Elections Canada, or similar to Elections Canada, many of those chiefs would not have that position.

Our First Nations Accountability Coalition members welcome and support Minister Robert Nault's First Nations Governance Act. On behalf of the thousands of coalition members in Canada, we thank you for giving us this opportunity to express our point of view and to submit our recommendations for the First Nations Governance Act.

Voices: Hear, hear!

¸ (1415)

The Chair: Thank you very much. Does this complete your presentation?

Ms. Leona Freed: Yes, it does.

The Chair: A four-minute round, Mr. Pallister.

Mr. Brian Pallister: It's good to see you, Leona.

You're saying you're supportive--

A voice: [Editor's Note: Inaudible]

Mr. Brian Pallister: --of the First Nations Governance Act, and you'll be--

A voice: [Editor's Note: Inaudible]

Ms. Leona Freed: Excuse me, but the person who's talking now is being very disrespectful, and I don't appreciate it.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Neither does anyone here.

Ms. Leona Freed: That's the level of intelligence we have to deal with.

Mr. Brian Pallister: No, we should show respect to all presenters.

The Chair: I will take the lead, in chairing the meeting. If anyone disrupts, I will ask that they be removed from the room.

Ms. Leona Freed: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Pallister.

Mr. Brian Pallister: [Editor's Note: Technical difficulty]...concerns, you know that. You've known it for a long time.

My concern is that your words will be used by those who want to push this act forward in total. We've spoken before, and I've shared with you some of the concerns others have expressed to me, including some of our members, about some aspects of the act. So I want to ask you quickly about a couple of aspects of the act that I'm pretty sure you don't support, but I want to ask you honestly.

Do you support the idea of chiefs and councils being able to appoint enforcement officers?

Ms. Leona Freed: No.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Do you support the idea of chiefs and councils being given--and most chiefs don't want this--the power to appoint their own ombudsman, to be accountable back to them?

Ms. Leona Freed: Pardon me?

Mr. Brian Pallister: Under this bill, it says that chiefs and councils will be given the responsibility to appoint a redress officer who will tell them when they're doing the right thing--much like the Prime Minister has his own ethics counsellor.

¸ (1420)

Ms. Leona Freed: No, absolutely not; we don't agree with that at all.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Thank you. I just wanted to make sure that was on the record.

You've raised so many things in your presentation, and we don't have nearly enough time to address a lot of these things. You mentioned, for example, mandatory drug testing. Our concern would be that aboriginal Canadians should have the same rights and responsibilities as other Canadians with respect to these things. I didn't have to take mandatory drug testing to run in a federal election, and--

Voices: Hear, hear!

Ms. Leona Freed: But, again, there are a lot of businesses who do require mandatory drug testing. If aboriginal leaders want to run a multi-million dollar operation, I think they should be drug-free and alcohol-free. They should be good role models.

Mr. Brian Pallister: I understand that, Leona, and I guess I'd make the observation.... You used the word “equality”, and I think we should be striving for equality in the way we deal with all Canadians. So I would have concerns about that suggestion, because the people here, and the Government of Canada, deal with a multi-billion dollar industry, that being this country.

So I would think that for consistency, we'd certainly have to hear more about any research you have on that, or how you think that might work. Because I would be reluctant to give any--

Ms. Leona Freed: I am speaking on behalf of thousands of Accountability Coalition members, who want mandatory drug testing of their leadership.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Okay.

Another issue you raised is the scope of audits. I think it's an excellent point you make. You know, Enron filed financial statements, they filed audits, and look at what they tried to do. It just about brought down the economy south of here.

So requiring, as this legislation does, annual financial statements really isn't helping grassroots aboriginal people learn more about how their own band funds are being directed effectively.

Would you support the idea--and we've been advancing it--of making sure that more detailed, comprehensive, and understandable audits be made available to band members, on request, so that they can actually see more readily how the funds are being managed at the local level?

Ms. Leona Freed: Aren't you already doing that?

Mr. Brian Pallister: Well, that's what the government's policy is, but it's not really happening. We're looking to, by amendment, strengthen that part of the act to give it teeth, to make sure that it works more effectively to protect band members.

Ms. Leona Freed: Yes, we definitely need teeth when it comes to the audits. As I stated in the presentation, we know how much money is going in and out of the reserves. We know how much money is being spent on education and housing and all the other programs. What we don't know is exactly where the money is going. We are so short; what are we short, 25,000 houses in Canada?

And with these exorbitant salaries, travel expenses, honorariums, per diems--it has to stop somewhere.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Martin, four minutes.

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

Ms. Freed, you say in your brief, and I quote, “Most Aboriginal leaders undermine, dictate and impose Third World living conditions on the First Nation people.” Can you honestly sit there and say you believe--

Ms. Leona Freed: I can, yes.

Mr. Pat Martin: --that most aboriginal leaders impose third world living conditions on the people they represent?

Ms. Leona Freed: Yes, I can. We have it all documented.

Mr. Pat Martin: Well, we've heard speaker after speaker after speaker maintain that part of the fiscal management problems that reserves face is the impossible task of trying to meet the basic needs of communities with the terrible underfunding--

Voices: Hear, hear!

Ms. Leona Freed: They claim to have underfunding, but again, if they're so underfunded, why do they have $100,000 salaries or--

Mr. Pat Martin: Ms. Freed, it seems that you'd like to see your personal grievances--legitimate, I'm sure--solved by Bill C-7, but Bill C-7 goes far beyond even the complaints that you've put forward.

Ms. Leona Freed: I'm sorry, but I don't have personal grievances. I'm up here speaking for the people, for our Accountability Coalition members in Canada.

Mr. Pat Martin: I understand, and that's fine.

¸ (1425)

Ms. Leona Freed: So don't say that I have personal grievances, because I don't. If you went right into a community and went past the aboriginal leadership's homes and the homes in the community, you would see the third world living conditions.

Mr. Pat Martin: I would only ask you to recognize that Bill C-7 goes beyond even the issues that you bring forward here. So your boosterism of Bill C-7 may in fact be doing irreparable damage or harm even in your interest of trying to get the issues that you bring forward here dealt with.

I mean, are you really an enthusiastic supporter of all the aspects of Bill C-7?

Ms. Leona Freed: I am, and we are.

Mr. Pat Martin: I just can't understand that. I honestly can't understand how you--

Ms. Leona Freed: That's because you haven't visited all these first nation communities that--

Mr. Pat Martin: I've visited an awful lot of them, actually, Ms. Freed.

Ms. Leona Freed: And I haven't visited all of them either, but I have been talking to numerous.... We have documented half the reserves in Canada who are crying for accountability--

Mr. Pat Martin: You found one person willing to file some kind of a complaint from half the reserves in Canada.

Ms. Leona Freed: It isn't one person, we have--

Mr. Pat Martin: I mean, let's not overstate the scope and the magnitude of the issues you raise. When you overstate--

The Chair: Let's not cross-examine our witnesses. Let's ask questions.

Mr. Pat Martin: I'm using what little time I have to challenge this assumption you're trying to put out there, that most aboriginal leaders are forcing third world conditions. That is so entirely unfair....

No, I'm quoting verbatim from your statements here, Ms. Freed. So I guess I would ask you to be more temperate in your remarks and to—

The Chair: It's not your role to direct the attitudes of our witnesses.

Mr. Pat Martin: It's not your role to interrupt me, either--

Voices: Hear, hear!

Mr. Pat Martin: --when I have so little time.

The Chair: My role is to chair the meeting, and I'm saying to you, it's not your role to try to control the attitude or the opinions of our witnesses.

Continue.

Mr. Pat Martin: She has every right to make the statements she wants to make, but I'm just speaking to the larger picture here. We are very concerned--and most of the aboriginal people across the country who have come before this committee are very concerned--that Bill C-7 is going to do a lot more harm than it will do good.

I'm asking you if you are willing to recognize the fact that those issues you bring forward won't really even be addressed by Bill C-7, but a lot of other harm will be done in terms of--

Ms. Leona Freed: You think they won't be addressed by Bill C-7. I believe they will be.

Mr. Pat Martin: Leading authorities across the country don't believe it will be. Our study of it--

Ms. Leona Freed: Yes, of course leading authorities don't believe it will be. But the ordinary Indian believes it.

Mr. Pat Martin: Well, those few ordinary Indians that you're here saying you represent.... A million people will be impacted by Bill C-7, and you claim to have found 1,000 people with individual grievances.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Dromisky, four minutes.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: First of all, I'd like to say thank you. You've helped solve some of the problems I've been dealing with. I'm new on this committee--I started last week--and I have been listening to nothing but chiefs. I've been saying to myself, where are the people? How is it that we've had chief after chief after chief making the presentations?

Voices: Hear, hear!

Mr. Stan Dromisky: And a most unusual kind of thing is happening, and has happened in this committee over the last two weeks. We have 633 reserves, and we're getting a presentation by a certain level of leadership. Every one of them has taken the same position automatically. Many of them, I'm sure, have not even read the bill. I don't think many of them would even understand it.

A voice: [Editor's Note: Inaudible]

Mr. Stan Dromisky: We've had chiefs who've admitted, “We're just against it--period”, whether they understood it or not or whether they read it or not.

A voice: [Editor's Note: Inaudible]

Mr. Stan Dromisky: You wonder why. What have they got to lose?

I think you've indicated in this paper, and in the survey you've done, that chiefs have a lot to lose, according to the information you have presented.

A voice: [Editor's Note: Inaudible]

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Now, what I would like to know is whether--

The Chair: I would ask the lady at the back to please keep quiet or leave the room.

A voice: No, I will not keep quiet...[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

The Chair: Order.

We will suspend proceedings until that young lady has left the room.

¸ (1429)

¸ (1432)

The Chair: [Editor's Note: Technical difficulty]...has elapsed.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: My question is, what you're talking about, is it most prevalent in some sections of Canada more so than in any other sections of Canada, or is what you've discovered common from Newfoundland all the way to British Columbia and the islands?

Ms. Leona Freed: It's common from coast to coast.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: From coast to coast.

Ms. Leona Freed: Yes. We did a report, in 1998, of about 300 pages. Most of it was appendix. It was tabled with the aboriginal standing committee in Ottawa in April 1997. We are in the process of doing our second report, because today we don't see any changes being made to these first nation communities. The people are still living in third world conditions.

Again, I didn't have my freedom of speech here today, because we have all these aboriginal leaders with their rent-a-crowd speaking up for them. I'm very disgusted with them.

But what is happening here to me today, to our organization, is because we are speaking out for the governance act. This is happening in a lot of our communities. If the people speak out against their leadership, they are ostracized.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Thank you very much, Leona.

Thank you.

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

Mr. Pallister.

Mr. Brian Pallister: The Canadian Human Rights Act doesn't apply to aboriginal people, and under this legislation won't either, because there is an interpretive clause that gives primacy to collective rights over individual rights. So aboriginal women, minorities on reserves won't be able to use the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

Does your organization have concerns about that?

Ms. Leona Freed: We believe the Canadian Human Rights Act does not pertain to any of the aboriginal people because of the Indian Act, and we feel that the Indian Act and the Human Rights Act should be amended to include both. Because right now we have employees at the band office who get fired because they're asking questions, or opposing the leadership, or whatever. They cannot go to the Human Rights Act because of the Indian Act.

So we definitely need changes in that area.

¸ (1435)

Mr. Brian Pallister: Right.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Martin, three minutes.

Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Chair, other people who've come forward have made the point that the lasting solutions lie in the implementation of the treaty process, not in tinkering or amending the Indian Act, which many see as a flawed document, as a document from a past era that was wrong then and is wrong now; that this tinkering with it isn't going to have any lasting solutions even in terms of issues you're bringing forward; that the real solutions lie with true self-governance and the implementation of the treaty process.

Don't you think your energies would be better spent looking for more concrete issues of substance, lasting solutions, within the treaty process, nation to nation?

Ms. Leona Freed: Our treaties are protected by the Canadian Constitution, as I stated in the presentation.

And I don't think you should be telling me where I should be spending my energy. I know where I'm spending my energy.

Mr. Pat Martin: I was trying to be civil to you, Ms. Freed.

Ms. Leona Freed: Try harder.

Mr. Pat Martin: One of the clauses in the bill that you've seen fit to throw your support behind would be that band officers would have vastly expanded rights to search--to search and seizure rights, if you will. Without a warrant they could enter into any building on the reserve other than residences, and without any kind of cause or warrant--an expansive interference with personal freedoms, we would argue.

Now, don't you have any objection to that type of intrusion?

Ms. Leona Freed: What kind of buildings are you talking about, for these searches and seizures? What are you talking about?

Mr. Pat Martin: Anything other than personal...or anything other than homes, whether it's a private business on the reserve, or a band business, or an enterprise, or a nursing station or whatever, without any kind of authorization.

Ms. Leona Freed: Well, as it is now, most leadership goes in to do that already. They will take businesses away from the community members. And I have that documented, too.

Mr. Pat Martin: Another serious rights issue comes to light when not only would you have to show financial statements to all band members--which everybody agrees, I think, is the right thing to do, as audits and financial statements should be accessible to all band members--but they also would have to be accessible to anyone who asked, even me as a private citizen or as a non-aboriginal person, never mind being an MP. I would be able to come up and ask to see the financial statements of not only the band but any business run by the band or any operation within the band.

How do you feel about that?

Ms. Leona Freed: Why shouldn't the finances be public knowledge? What do they have to hide? Why shouldn't the finances be public knowledge to anyone--to anyone who asks?

Mr. Pat Martin: But what if some business that the band was running was in competition with--

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): Thank you for coming. I realize that it's been a lively afternoon for all concerned.

It's been suggested, when other witnesses have come forward in support of the bill, that they've either been intimidated or financially encouraged to do so, that they have been underwritten in some fashion. I notice that there was some suggestion of that earlier this afternoon.

For the record, could you tell us a bit about your own organization and how in fact it does get its funding?

Voices: Hear, hear!

Mr. John Godfrey: I just don't think it's fair to leave the assertion lying on the table without your having the right to respond.

Ms. Leona Freed: Our organization is a non-profit organization. All the work is done at our own expense. It's volunteer work. We get a lot of private donations, and that's about it.

Mr. John Godfrey: Thank you.

Voices: [Editor's Note: Inaudible]

The Chair: Order.

We have three minutes for closing remarks. We might invite you to make closing comments, please.

Ms. Leona Freed: I want to thank you once again for giving us the opportunity to come here and try to express our own opinions. As I stated earlier, when people do speak out against whatever the aboriginal leadership does not agree with, they get ostracized, as you've seen here today. Our members in the community who question the aboriginal leadership get ostracized, so they end up losing services.

We support the First Nations Governance Act and the changes made to the Indian Act. We welcome and support it. It's about time Robert Nault put his foot down on these aboriginal leaders and did something for the ordinary Indian.

Thank you.

¸ (1440)

The Chair: Thank you very much. We thank you for an excellent presentation, and we admire you for your courage.

I now invite, from the National Council of Women of Canada, Elizabeth Fleming, Provincial Council of Women of Manitoba, Inc.

Ms. Elizabeth Fleming: The National Council of Women of Canada is scheduled for 3 p.m. My name is down here because I was the contact person, but the person who will be speaking on our behalf--I hope she will be here at 3 o'clock--is Muriel Smith.

The Chair: So we'll wait until 3 o'clock for that presentation.

Is Marcel Balfour from the Norway House Cree Nation here, and prepared to present at this time? He is not here.

We will go to spontaneous presentations of two minutes.

Corena Letandre. Not present?

James Wastasecoot.

Raven Thundersky.

Edwin Mitchell.

Okay, Mr. Mitchell, welcome. We have two minutes for spontaneous presentations, and we invite you to begin yours.

Mr. Edwin Mitchell (As Individual): Thank you.

The Chair: I should say, before you start, that for anyone making a spontaneous presentation, we understand that two minutes is not a long time. We wanted to open it to everyone here, and it's something extra that we're doing. If you leave a document, we will make sure it's translated and shared with all members of the committee.

Please proceed.

Mr. Edwin Mitchell: I want to tell you my main concerns. I have five pages of all the things I want to say, but I've chosen some main things to tell you.

This bill is not first nation-driven. We as first nation people are capable of planning, implementing, monitoring, and making decisions on our own, if only the department had faith in our regional and national first nation organizations. We as first nation people, not a department of the federal government, should have control of our destiny, to make decisions that could greatly affect the lives of first nation people.

The proposed bill is sweeping and massive. I need to express to you as a committee that we are not ready for this. The majority of first nations do not understand Bill C-7, or FNGA. The implications of the changes are uncertain, and a severe threat to first nation members. When people understand Bill C-7, only then will consultation be effective.

Internet consultation is not sufficient to gather an informed opinion from first nation people. Many first nations are computer illiterate. How many first nations have computers? How many first nations use the Internet for information?

For the record, I am requesting your presence in our community to clarify and establish an understanding of the new bill. The department will never understand first nation people, because policies are done by non-first nation people.

I would like to make my conclusion. Opposition to Bill C-7 by me and certainly by many people who don't have the opportunity to speak on their own behalf should be heard and reported. Concerns by chiefs of Manitoba are pertinent. Chiefs should not be ignored, because they represent first nation members, and in your case, constituents.

¸ (1445)

The Chair: I must interrupt, because I've allowed three minutes, and the most I will go over is one extra minute. If you leave your document with the clerk, we will ensure its distribution to all members of the committee.

Thank you very much.

Voices: Hear, hear!

The Chair: Is Gisèle Saurette-Roch here?

Is Lorena Fontaine here?

Welcome, Ms. Fontaine.

Ms. Lorena Fontaine (As Individual): Thank you.

¸ (1450)

The Chair: Please proceed.

Ms. Lorena Fontaine: I would like to thank you for allowing me to make this brief statement today.

My name is Lorena Fontaine, and I'm from the Sagkeeng First Nation here in Manitoba. I consider the Opaskwayak Cree Nation my home as well.

I'm here to briefly raise something very important in these discussions on the governance act. Although it's not directly related to Bill C-7, it is related to what I believe is necessary for good governance.

Good governance requires a healthy society that is equipped to make good decisions about the future. A healthy society requires people to have knowledge, and to acknowledge the ramifications of past harms and mistakes. Unless our society, which includes first nations and non-first nations people, understands the devastating impact of the policy to extinguish first nations culture in this country, and the impact of the residential schools, we cannot move forward as a healthy society, because we're not equipped with the tools to make good decisions about our future.

We as a society have to deal with the effects of shame that exist in this country about first nations people, ignorance and intergenerational abuse that continues to affect my generation.

Young, bright first nations people continue to commit suicide in our communities as a result of the legacy of the Indian Act. Non-first nations people in Canada remain ignorant of the history of this country--the history of the residential schools and the destruction of our culture, our language. Non-first nations people also remain ignorant of the history of this country, which is about first nations culture. Unless we as communities, that are dedicated and have the responsibility to make decisions that affect the future of first nations people, have the knowledge and acknowledge the legacy of the Indian Act, none of us will be equipped to move forward and have the tools necessary for good governance in this country.

I hope to make a longer submission to this committee in the near future on the intergenerational effects of the residential schools, and the manner in which the federal government is treating first nations people in the resolution of the residential school cases.

I'm here not representing anyone but myself on these views. As we move forward on making important decisions that are going to affect my generation, I feel that this is an important issue that has to be dealt with in this country.

Meegwetch.

Voices: Hear, hear!

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Caroline Bruyere, welcome. Please proceed.

Ms. Caroline Bruyere (Elder, Sagkeeng First Nation, As Individual): Good afternoon. I welcome you to our land, Manitoba, which is translated as “Where the Creator sits”.

My ancestry is from Peguis, and I am a descendant of a long line of leaders, very honourable leaders. I am a niece of the most decorated soldier in Canada. Both of my very honourable ancestors have now been recognized by this government that inhabits our land. It's very commendable that there was a stained glass installed at the Deer Lodge Hospital the other day.

I want to say also that my ancestry negotiated Treaty No. 1, which was signed in 1871. A portion of that treaty was not there when they were signing, and my ancestor wanted it to be included in there. He was told it would be done “tomorrow”. He died trying to get it. Whatever it was, it didn't get down to me, in oral history, but I am sure that somewhere in your archives it must be contained. It hasn't surfaced. Nowhere in my years have I heard or seen that we were involved in the development, implementation, or revisions of the Indian Act.

The Indian Act has been very discretionary, very controlling. The Indian Act doesn't give us the right to develop business on our reserves. We have--

The Chair: I have to interrupt. We're over three minutes.

Ms. Caroline Bruyere: Okay, I'll finish quickly.

The Chair: Well, because you're an elder, very quickly, then.

Ms. Caroline Bruyere: If this is a consultation process, have you proceeded as such? I don't believe so, because there are certain procedures and processes that have to take place.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I now welcome Ms. Glenice Smith.

Please proceed.

Ms. Glenice Smith (Roseau River, As Individual): First of all, I would like to welcome all of you who are here in terms of listening to the different views--and we've heard differing and opposing views--that do and do not support this initiative.

I come here as an Anishinabe woman, and I speak on behalf of myself, my children, my grandchildren, and subsequent generations yet to come, of all my relatives.

I speak with the spirit and intent of the ancestral chief, and my relatives, who are signators to the various treaties of this country. I'm here to remind you of our understanding of the treaties. According to our ancestral relatives, they were made on a nation-to-nation basis. We were not a conquered people.

You accidentally came to this country, and my relatives helped you from the time of your escaping oppression in your own European countries, whether it be religious prosecution or whether it be feudalism and lack of land ownership in your own country.

I'm here to remind you that those are nation-to-nation documents. Our ancestral chiefs and relatives signed those with the intent of partnership, of living in peace and harmony, of showing you how to live in this country.

I'm here to remind you that all of the policies, all of the laws, and all of the legislation imposed on my peoples for over hundreds of years were not of our doing. We had no consultation during this time. We had no consultation about the 1930 natural resource transfer agreement that gave the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta our sacred lands.

I humbly beg of you, do not give this initiative legitimacy or credence without first consulting with the peoples it has impacted and affected. We've already learned--we have clear evidence in our history--how these laws, these policies, these legislations have not worked.

Voices: Hear, hear!

¸ (1455)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Next is Raven Thundersky.

I was told he was here.

James Wastasecoot, then.

Therefore, we will proceed to the National Council of Women of Canada. I welcome Muriel Smith on behalf of that council.

We have 20 minutes together. We invite you to make your presentation, which hopefully will allow time for questions.

Ms. Muriel Smith (Convener, International Affairs, National Council of Women of Canada): Thank you.

It may seem unusual for a predominantly non-aboriginal organization to put forward a brief on a proposed bill focused on first nations peoples and communities. However, our council would like to present its views and perspectives reflecting those of many Canadians who are observing and learning the cultures and history of aboriginal peoples. We certainly appreciate this opportunity.

Our purpose today is to support the work and brief of the Provincial Council of Women of Manitoba. It's been keenly interested in the issues affecting aboriginal women in the communities, particularly heightened by their experience with the Dakota Tipi First Nation. We urge the standing committee to listen to and benefit from the input from these women.

My printed brief does give a fair bit of background, so I will skip through the initial part to get to our more substantive recommendations.

The focus of our brief is Bill C-7, but some of the background and review of policy work of our council has been included in your printed document, just to show the types of issues we've been undertaking.

Most recently, in 2002, we approved a policy resolution dealing with the protection of human rights of aboriginal peoples in Canada. This policy urges the Government of Canada to remove section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act as quickly as possible, and to consider drafting, in consultation with first nations governments, a human rights code that would be in compliance with UN human rights conventions. And it was the Provincial Council of Women of Manitoba that drafted, presented, and supported this important resolution at our national annual meeting.

I should just say that our council also takes notice of international commitments, through our consultative status at the United Nations, and we draw attention to conventions and declarations that Canada has signed on to--in summary, that all peoples have the right to self-determination; that measures should be taken to abolish existing laws and customs that are discriminatory against women and to establish protection for equal rights for men and women; the definition of discrimination is any distinction, exclusion, or restriction made on the basis of sex, which has the effect of impairing, or nullifying, the exercise by women of their human rights in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other fields; and finally, persons belonging to minorities have the right to participate effectively in decisions on the national and, where appropriate, regional level concerning the minority to which they belong or the regions in which they live.

With regard to our main issues and concerns, it's important that this legislation include a non-derogation clause to state quite clearly that the legislation will not infringe on aboriginal and treaty rights.

We are disappointed that the process of consulting, drafting, and presenting the proposed Bill C-7 is flawed. Instead of bringing together the first nations and the Government of Canada, we see strong opposition by aboriginal leaders to the proposed bill and the absence of a meaningful consultation. The presentation by Grand Chief Gary Merasty from the Prince Albert Grand Council speaks eloquently to what we have observed. He states that in spite of the fact that bands cooperated with the consultation, the result did not address the points brought forward by band members. We're concerned that the bill will do more to divide first nations communities and separate them from the rest of Canada rather than bringing the communities into harmony with values commonly held, such as the need for accountability and transparency.

The timeframes as proposed by the bill to develop codes are not realistic. Two years is not reasonable for many of the smaller communities. Has the department done any analysis of how many of the communities could meet this standard, and what is the actual plan and budget for implementation?

¹ (1500)

Although there may be principles expressed in the bill, such as accountability and democratic selection of leadership, that we could support, we believe there is a duty, as Sheila Fraser stated in her presentation to you, for government to help the first nations develop the capacity to manage well. And we should strive to have no bands under third-party management. Much work needs to be done under the heading of “capacity building” before the expectations proposed under Bill C-7 can be realized.

The appointment of enforcement officers and the appeal processes as outlined in Bill C-7 concern us because of the possible arbitrary manner that this may occur. It will be important for the protection of women and children that appointment, enforcement, and appeal processes be independent of the political structure currently governing the community.

I'll proceed to our recommendations.

One, we should proceed quickly with the consequential amendments to section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Two, we should include the grounds of political belief in the Canadian Human Rights Act. It's found in most provincial human rights codes, and in fact in most other countries. The 1966 UN Convention on Civil and Political Rights, which Canada has agreed to, provides for this inclusion.

Three, we should provide resources to inform first nations about the Human Rights Commission and the complaints procedures. The removal of section 67 from that act would have important implications for first nations...their citizens and the Human Rights Commission. Resources should be considered to support informing first nations about the commission and the complaints procedures.

Four, we should ensure that the Indian Act does not discriminate at the same time as section 67 is removed from the Canadian Human Rights Act. We would also urge you to consider the comments made in the submission of the Canadian Human Rights Commission on January 28, 2003, to this committee with respect to the gender equality guarantee, the interpretive clause, making it clear that in no case can the needs and aspirations of first nations communities be interpreted so as to discriminate against women.

We have particular concern regarding the legacy of Bill C-31 and the fact that the grandchild of a Bill C-31 woman has Indian status only if both of his or her parents have status. The grandchild of a man who married a non-Indian is entitled to status without exception. There will now be ability for complaints to come forward with the removal of section 67, and the committee should anticipate this.

As well, the possible discrimination against Bill C-31 women in their access to programs and services by first nations must be addressed. This could be, for example, denial of access to housing and education.

We would concur with the submission of the Canadian Human Rights Commission that the government must review the impact of Bill C-31 and take appropriate legislative measures to ensure that the Indian Act does not discriminate at the same time as section 67 is removed.

Five, complete a thorough gender-based analysis of Bill C-7 and analyze the impact of the proposed changes on existing legislation, such as the Indian Act and the Canadian Human Rights Act--and consider further legislative changes in consultation with aboriginal peoples.

The government cannot simply hand over to civilians the responsibility to mend historically gender-based provisions in the Indian Act that are known to be seriously in violation of existing human rights legislation. Individuals must then go on their own initiative and at their own expense to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. To propose to do so is also an apparent attempt to download the resolution of these critical issues to the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the courts rather than acknowledging the federal government's duty to negotiate these issues with the aboriginal peoples in a climate of reciprocal responsibility, respecting the intent of the negotiating parties to establish responsible and democratic aboriginal self-governance.

As our brief has outlined, the National Council of Women of Canada continues to be concerned about the situation facing many aboriginal peoples in Canada, particularly women and children. Removal of section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is one small step forward, but much more needs to be done with respect to the apparent gender discrimination of the Indian Act and omissions such as membership and matrimonial property rights.

The National Council of Women of Canada urges the committee to make recommendations for changes to the First Nations Governance Act and other legislation that reflects the points brought forward in this brief and that will remove barriers to the achievement of democratic self-government for Canada's aboriginal peoples.

Thank you.

¹ (1505)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Three-minute rounds, starting with Mr. Pallister.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Thank you very much.

Thank you for a very good presentation. Your concerns about equal rights under the Canadian Human Rights Act for aboriginal women, for all aboriginal people, are concerns we share. But I wanted to segue to another issue that's been brought to us from a number of sources, the issue of matrimonial property. The absence of rules around matrimonial property apparently on reserve really hurts not just aboriginal women but aboriginal people.

I wondered if your organization had any views on that issue. It's certainly something that we would like to see addressed. It isn't addressed here in the act, as you know, but we have the opportunity now. If the government does not back away from the legislation, we will of course try to make it better, as best we can, with amendments.

So this is one of the areas that we would certainly like to see addressed. I wondered if you or your organization had some views on it that you could share with us.

Ms. Muriel Smith: From our organization's point of view, I don't think we've gotten down to those fine points, but on a personal level, as a veteran of the struggle for matrimonial property rights among the mainstream, which was very intense in the seventies, I would say that first the principle has to be recognized of the equality of entitlement of male and female.

I'm not quite sure how, on a reserve, if some of the property rights are collective, that would be allocated, but if you could remove discrimination based on gender or sex, I would think that would be one way to move. I don't know what the definition of “household” is, whether there's head of household or any of the other issues that were relevant for the mainstream. Basically, the principle we found was that for the period of time two people were living together, they acquired equal rights in any assets acquired, and on separation or death or whatever, these rights should be distributed equally, either in kind or in money.

¹ (1510)

Mr. Brian Pallister: When we raised this issue with the people from the Canadian Human Rights Act, we got a long answer about how detailed and how complex the issue was. That said, surely, as my grandfather used to say, the best time to plant a tree was 30 years ago, and the second-best time is now.

So if any good can come from this process, I would hope that we can raise some of these issues that have been put on the back burner for a long time but are of such concern to so many of the people who've talked to us.

Ms. Muriel Smith: One of the lessons we learned from family law reform in the seventies here was that the Law Reform Commission studied the issue, and they just presumed that the male bird was going to off and get worms and the female was going to stay on the nest and look after the eggs. There was never a presumption of equality in care-taking responsibility or in bread-winning. If you started from a cooperative assumption, you would go down a better path.

So I think you have to look very carefully at the underlying assumptions that go into law and build in gender-based equality.

The Chair: Thank you very much. Time's up.

I just wish to clarify something, not to correct. Mr. Pallister said that if the government doesn't back off from this bill, we have to try to improve it as much as we can. If the government should want to back off from this, they would not do it before we exercise that opportunity to improve it. This committee will be doing the clause-by-clause before the government would have an opportunity, really, to back off.

So we have to go through the process that is mentioned, and then the government can do what it wants; I just want this clear.

Ms. Muriel Smith: And promote the gender-based equality issue, because if you apply that to the recommendations you make, you at least wouldn't diverge from what we would like to see.

The Chair: That's right.

Mr. Martin, three minutes.

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

Thank you, Ms. Smith, for very thoughtful remarks. They're very useful to us. As usual, just your being here seems to have elevated the standard of debate, given some of the goings-on earlier in the day.

With only three minutes, I'm going to limit myself to one area you mentioned, and that's Bill C-31. Much of the fiscal challenges on first nations that gave rise to the introduction of the accountability and transparency aspects of this bill stemmed from Bill C-31. Even though the band list grew as Bill C-31 members came back to the reserve, or rejoined the band, there was no corresponding increase in dollars. So it was simply an impossible task to provide for the basic needs of the new additions to the band, to the reserve.

Your brief really doesn't deal with some of the other substantive issues about the bill, other than.... Has the National Council of Women dealt with, for instance, the larger picture of the bill, about imposing governance codes on first nations communities against their will; the issue of putting good governance first and issues of sovereignty and implementation of treaty second?

With what little time we have, can you speak to the overall picture of Bill C-7?

Ms. Muriel Smith: Again, I can only extrapolate from resolutions that have come over the years from our association on adequate housing and adequate funds for health care and education. I've had some personal experience of how desperately short, relative to the need, those resources have been over time, so I can sympathize with the plight of the reserves when the band members expanded but the number of allocated houses and/or other things were in short supply. Then to have additional numbers--I can see the pressure.

With regard to the focus on good governance, and I see it a lot from the international perspective, very often there's a focus on good governance on one side, and on the other side, financial economic rules aggravate the situation the country is already in. Unless you look at economics and political governance side by side, and realize that without some adequate basic standards of living and the appropriate resources the expectation of good governance.... It's isolated in an unreal way.

So although I would like to see good governance--I think we all would--if the prior issue of adequate resources is not dealt with, I think it's going to be very difficult, and unfair.

¹ (1515)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Ms. Karetak-Lindell, three minutes.

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: As a beneficiary of a collective agreement.... I'm the member of Parliament for Nunavut, and we have our own land claims agreement. One of the things we struggle with is the interpretations by the Human Rights Commission, individual rights versus collective rights. With their presentation I was not reassured that individual rights would not supersede collective rights.

How would you deal with that, when you have collective rights that need to be protected versus individual rights?

Ms. Muriel Smith: Personally, I can speak more from the international perspective, that political and civil rights were promoted by the richer countries. There's a parallel economic, social, and cultural rights convention promoted more by the needier countries, and they see them as...well, officially everyone sees them as interconnected, but in the north we tend only to hear about political-civil. There's sort of a bias towards individual rights that come under that convention, somehow relegating economic, social, and cultural rights, which I think would include some of the collective notions, to a secondary role. I think it's wrong.

Again, I think you have to take a both/and approach and try to sort out which rights are individual and which are collective, and have a composite. Because I don't think the argument between one or the other is ever going to resolve itself. There are some rights that need to be individual, and I'm sure in some aboriginal communities that's the case, with a good many others collective.

So I do think if you take a both/and approach, there is a solution.

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: Thank you.

The Chair: We have a minute and a half left, so we'll ask you to make closing remarks.

Ms. Muriel Smith: In a lot of the dilemmas faced by the aboriginal communities I see reflected the dilemmas faced by many of the new and poorer countries internationally, that they are being invited into a system that seems biased against them in the way the rules apply, and I would deplore seeing that happen in Canada.

I think there are lessons we need to learn, that in many cases the aboriginal communities are, in economic terms, at a disadvantage, and they will need extra-sensitive rules so that they don't end up still being at a disadvantage in economic and financial terms. I think somehow the concepts that apply in mainstream are not directly applicable. I think there needs to be some kind of closing of the resource gap approach, or I think we're going to continue to have the poverty and some of the tensions on reserve that come from scarcity of resources.

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

We'll return to the spontaneous presentations.

I will ask if Corena Letandre is in the room.

Is James Wastasecoot here? James is here.

After that, the next person I will call is Mr. Raven Thundersky, and then Gisèle Saurette-Roch.

Mr. Wastasecoot, this is for a spontaneous presentation of two minutes. I know you've just come in, but we're very sticky on the clock.

¹ (1520)

Mr. James Wastasecoot (As Individual): Thank you.

I just want to hand these out.

The Chair: Then we can stop the clock. I should say that any document you leave with the clerk will be translated and distributed to all members of the committee, even those who are not here today.

Now you can start.

Mr. James Wastasecoot: Mr. Chairman, I first of all want to acknowledge the fact that there are many excellent leaders out there in our communities, working very hard every day to do the best they can in their role as leaders under very difficult circumstances. So the conditions and the issues that I want to describe to you certainly don't apply across the board to everybody.

But we do have a very serious problem. Canadians enjoy the benefits of a democratic political system that works for them. If Canadians are dissatisfied with their leaders, they can say so in the media. They can go to a public meeting and make their views known amongst their fellows. They can appear at any number of fora that exist for this purpose and share their views, and present what they see as solutions to problems in societies.

Now, you would think--I think all governments and I'm sure all Canadians agree--that indigenous peoples enjoy these same rights and freedoms. And we do, in theory. Many Canadians believe the same Constitution that provides safeguards for them extends to us as well. In fact, we used to say that we were “citizens plus”.

How is it possible that I can sit in front of you today, then, and say that I really don't have any rights as a citizen of my first nation government? As strange and as sad as this statement sounds, I'm afraid it's the very real truth of the experience and the life I have lived over the past few years in my community.

I publish small-circulation newspapers. We distribute them in our community, across the country, and also here in Manitoba. The business end of the activity is quite modest, but we make a living and we're very proud of what we do. The job is simply to inform our community of what is happening in our midst so that if folks feel moved to act on a problem or issue, they may do so, and in so doing contribute to a healthy community that is safe for everybody.

I know my time is quickly running out. I'm simply going to leave my presentation with you, but I do want to say, in respect to my own community, that I am from the community of Peguis. The experience we have there is terrible.

One story that I want to relate to you is about Cyril Cameron, a gentleman who--

The Chair: You must do so in 20 seconds, maximum, since you're at almost three minutes now.

¹ (1525)

Mr. James Wastasecoot: Okay.

Cyril Cameron filed an information access request a few years ago, and requested certain documents. I've circulated here the story of how his chief deliberately went out and obstructed--and bribed him, in fact--in order to keep certain information from coming out into the community. This is deplorable.

I will simply leave you with that.

The Chair: Thank you very much. This concludes your time. We've already allowed three minutes. I'm very sorry.

For those who feel that two minutes is not a long time, we understand that, but keep in mind that we had advised every band, and throughout the media--including your newspapers, I'm sure--that you could register and then have ten minutes. We decided to add on the two minutes for spontaneous, just to go that extra step.

Is Gisèle Saurette-Roch here?

Is Jim Sinclair here?

Please come forward, Mr. Sinclair. We invite you to make a two-minute presentation. Welcome.

Rev. Jim Sinclair (As Individual): My name is Jim Sinclair. I'm a member of the Peguis St. Peter's Band. Most of my life I've lived off reserve.

In the past number of years, I've done a number of consultations and information-sharing sessions, on behalf of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, with the Corbiere decision, and with the AFN, with the urban issues task force, going across the country, to every province, including the Yukon, to look at the issues that affect our people off reserve.

Lately I've participated in information-sharing sessions on Bill C-7, formerly Bill C-61. There is a great deal of concern with regard to the people who live off reserve. In the case of our reserve, Peguis, 63% of us live off reserve, and there is absolutely no opportunity for us, aside from a time like next week, when we're able to vote for our councillors and chiefs.

People want to be involved. People feel there is a need for a change. But people want to be involved with that change.

In regard to what's coming up under the First Nations Governance Act, even our leadership has looked at it and said, you know, there's a need for a change, especially in accountability and human rights. The opportunity has been given to all people off reserve. Of course, there is a boycott, I guess, against it on reserve, although some reserves have participated in terms of asking Indian Affairs people to go in.

In my own case, I feel that our people--our 50%, 60%, 70% who live off reserve--have not been consulted, have not been involved, and we welcome the opportunity under those two particular things, accountability and human rights. Of course, land management is another thing that requires a lot more.

The Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs had a six- to eight-year program, a framework agreement initiative, that was similar to this, but it involved mostly people living on reserve to define their own desired changes to the Indian Act.

The greatest concern expressed to us...and our meetings were right across the province in every major community and even some smaller communities, but we did not go onto reserve. The opportunity was there for people to come out. There was a great deal of trepidation, I guess, on behalf of first nations members in terms of going to the meetings. Some numbers were small, some were large, but through it all there was a great deal of concern.

They all expressed the need for change. They all expressed the desire for accountability, and certainly in regard to human rights....

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I now invite Chief Tina Leveque.

Welcome, Chief. You may proceed.

Chief Tina Leveque (As Individual): Thank you.

I'm here as a woman, a mother, and a grandmother. I just happen to be in the role of chief right now.

I oppose this piece of proposed legislation, because, like many of the presenters before me, I consider it to be very flawed. I understand the reasoning behind it. At ANC assemblies and my tribal council assemblies, I have said that we have to take part responsibility for this legislation being drafted in the first place.

I am a strong believer in accountability and transparency. I practice that in my job, in my home life, and I've been doing it for years. Before I even came into political office I practised it before my family openly, and my community.

I oppose this proposed piece of legislation for many of the reasons that every presenter before me today has made known to you.

I know the clock is ticking. There is so much I want to say. And I'm speaking from the heart here, not from a piece of paper.

I realize we need accountability in our leadership. I have said so openly. But the winds of change are here in Indian country, and there has been a resolution passed recently to add more teeth to our own resolutions within our political organizations in Manitoba. They have been received by a vast majority of our leadership. In this legislation we are being penalized as a whole nation of people because of the actions of a very few. I speak out when I see any of the type of behaviour, from any leader, that has brought us to this point.

What I'm saying is that we can govern ourselves. There are many strong leaders who are beginning to stand up and say, we will not allow a small majority of leaders and their behaviour and their conduct to impact us all, because we're all being splattered by this. We're all being smeared by the implication that we're incompetent, that we cannot manage. And it's not true. We are very competent managers; a vast majority of us are.

I am extremely blessed to have a very powerful, strong, and hard-working group of people to work with in my community, and--

¹ (1530)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I will say to you, this is the third week of travel for the committee, and we have seen many, many examples of excellent administration. This committee is well aware of the dangers of painting everybody with the same brush. As a matter of fact, in our own constituencies we defend against those of our constituents who would like to paint everyone with the same brush.

So you can be assured of that. Thank you.

I now invite Grand Chief Dennis White Bird.

Welcome, Grand Chief. We invite you to make a two-minute presentation, which turns out to be a three-minute presentation every time.

Grand Chief Dennis White Bird (As Individual): Thank you, and welcome to Winnipeg.

I really wish you would have had an opportunity to address the people downstairs who support their leaders.

I would like to state for the record that the First Nations Governance Act has an impact on rights, individual rights and collective rights. It impacts on our communities and it impacts on our land, but most of all, it impacts on the right to be self-determining. For us, that is the key aspect that we disagree with in the First Nations Governance Act. We find it to be regressive. We find it to be prescriptive. It's a piece of recommended or proposed legislation that delegates authority to our people.

We see so many things wrong with it. It's manipulative, and it's a form of the municipalization that the forerunner of the 1969 white paper tried to promote. It's just not acceptable.

We find the consultative process that has taken place to this point equally as flawed. Our first nation people have not had the opportunity to review the documentation. They have not had the resources to participate in qualitative consultation.

We see the Government of Canada, particularly the Department of Indian Affairs, the minister, using a very deceptive and deceitful approach in trying to get this legislation through.

We have heard right at this table that some of our people, who are in opposition to our chiefs and councils...and there is opposition in every community, no question, but in some cases that opposition has gone to smear the whole community of leadership.

In Manitoba here we have 62 first nation communities, and over 100,000 people. It's just not right that the minister can talk about the million people we have of first nation descent across Canada, and 10,000 will speak on behalf of those people. That is incorrect.

We also state that on the consultation process that has taken place, you have Supreme Court decisions that define principles of consultation, that you have a duty to consult, that you would not infringe on our rights, and that a distinctive process be in place for those people who would see their rights being impacted.

We have looked at the election codes, the intervention policies, and everything else this proposed legislation talks about. The only thing we would suggest is to withdraw the legislation and start all over again.

Voices: Hear, hear!

¹ (1535)

The Chair: Thank you very much, Grand Chief. I just want to mention, if you had registered previously, you would have been allowed between 30 minutes and one hour, depending on the group you represent. I know we did send a letter off to the chiefs and grand chiefs.

I now welcome Dennis Pashe.

Mr. Dennis Pashe (As Individual): Good day, and good day to the chiefs.

The committee has managed to give me a couple of minutes. I'll try to go fast.

I'm not an aboriginal, I'm a Dakota. I was a chief for 24 years, and I was sober for 23 of them. I will take a blood test, a drug test, right now.

I believe in the traditional way of life, and I tried to bring that back to the community. I had a lot of success. The reserve was 90% problems...and now it's back that way since the ministry got involved.

I have an attached statement, which should be relevant to the committee in its consideration of Bill C-7 in two ways.

First, Bill C-7 gives the minister sweeping colonial powers to take over the affairs of a first nation whenever he deems it advisable to do so. He can just step in without notice, without due process, without giving reasons. The committee should recommend that the minister never have this power, and in fact recommend that the Indian Act be amended accordingly.

The second reason my statement is relevant is that Mr. Pallister mentioned Dakota Tipi as a small band in Manitoba that is in anarchy because of the dictatorship of its former chief--me. The committee deserves to have all the details.

It is not my desire to embarrass anyone or to divert the attention of the committee from its important assignment. My objective is to help the standing committee understand why the Minister of Indian Affairs should never have assumed to power to intervene in a first nation's affairs.

When problems arise in a first nation, the problems should be dealt with by the first nation. When it cannot do so in a peaceful manner, any misconduct should be dealt with by the police, the criminal justice system, or through Federal Court if civil matters are involved. Both of these systems could beneficially use mediation, arbitration, and other mechanisms to assist in resolving issues.

Because the attached statement contains names so that the facts can be verified, if necessary, I'm not submitting it for the public record. I am, however, prepared to defend any facts in the statement and to answer questions from the committee about it.

It outlines the involvement of the minister, the media, politicians, and all the people who are involved, and...[Editor's Note: Inaudible]...to talk to us, or the majority.

Thank you very much.

Voices: Hear, hear!

The Chair: Thank you very much. Everyone will receive a copy of your document.

I now invite to the table, from Norway House Cree Nation, Marcel Balfour, councillor, chief and council office, and Eric Apetagon, councillor.

Welcome to both of you. We have 30 minutes together. We ask you to make your presentation. Hopefully you will allow some time for questions from members.

¹ (1540)

Mr. Marcel Balfour (Councillor, Chief and Council Office, Norway House Cree Nation): Thank you, and good afternoon. I'm pleased to be here with my colleague, Councillor Eric Apetagon, to provide you with some comments from members of chief and council regarding Bill C-7. In light of the limited time allowed, I will attempt to be brief in my presentation. I have provided a copy to the committee. I hope you have received it.

I would like to first clarify that these comments are intended to assist you in your work as committee members to address concerns that have been identified by some members of chief and council. As well, since Minister Nault's First Nations Governance Act initiative began, Norway House Cree Nation has had limited involvement in the process. Other than Minister Nault's approach by providing information in various media, there was no direct consultation with the people of Norway House Cree Nation. I therefore need to stress the fact that these comments do not reflect the will of the people of Norway House Cree Nation, since the people of Norway House have not been consulted regarding this bill.

Indeed, the Norway House Cree Nation chief and council only recently met twice with officials of the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs to obtain information regarding the content of Bill C-7 and how it may specifically impact Norway House Cree Nation.

Recent chief and council information meetings with departmental officials inform these comments on this bill. We reviewed the legislation clause by clause, and asked how the clauses would affect Cree Nation specifically regarding leadership selection, administration, and accountability.

In the review with the department, there were a number of key issues brought up as areas of concern. In light of that review, I should like to say that Norway House Cree Nation opposes any legislative initiative that would prevent us as a first nation now and in the future to be able to deal with internal matters by ourselves as a first nation and on a nation-to-nation basis with the Government of Canada, including in the areas of self-government, inherent right, aboriginal rights, treaty rights, fiduciary duty, and legal capacity.

We share the concerns that a number of presenters have already made regarding these areas, and note that Bill C-7 is extremely problematic, including a number of specific areas that I would like to highlight.

The first is the lack of a non-derogation clause. We'd like to recommend that you include a non-derogation clause. I won't go into the complete discussions that no doubt you've had; I think I've read some of them already.

As I understand the issue regarding the absence of a non-derogation clause, the Department of Justice proposes no longer having non-derogation clauses, and will be putting forward legislation to that effect. Part of the rationale for not having a non-derogation clause is that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. If a non-derogation clause is not going to be in the bill because of section 5 of the Constitution, then it is submitted that the preambular clause relating to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms should be removed as well.

However, I support having the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms explicitly referred to in the bill, even though it's part of the Constitution, as I do for aboriginal and treaty rights, which is also in the Constitution. I do not think Parliament should treat aboriginal people any differently from those enumerated under the charter.

I would like to suggest that the committee recommend business as usual and unambiguously state the intention of the legislation--to either intrude or not on aboriginal and treaty rights while at the same time not pre-empting or predetermining the will of Parliament regarding a non-derogation clause, and include the same until such time that Parliament decides not to include this in legislation.

Second, on changing the legal capacity of a band, I would like to recommend that the bill not expand the jurisdiction of the Indian Act by creating a natural person entity and expanding the jurisdiction of the minister. I have some comments on that in our presentation, but I'll continue.

¹ (1545)

With regard to the lack of recognition of collective rights, I think I heard when I was coming in--on time--that there was some discussion with respect to that. To ensure certainty, the bill should either explicitly state that there is an end to collective aboriginal rights or that there is a will to protect them.

It appears that Bill C-7 largely does away with the notion of collective rights, and by removing the powers conferred on the band by way of the Indian Act through subsection 43(4) to all powers of a band. The committee should consider other presentations made suggesting that the bill can be improved by including the following proposed wording:

This Act shall be interpreted in a manner that takes into account the collective rights of First Nations within the framework of the Canadian Constitution.

Another aspect is the legislation of inherent jurisdiction. The bill should not legislate the first nation jurisdiction that is an inherent right of the band. The band as a collective has the ability to determine its own democratic processes and other aspects, as identified in case law, and I think succinctly referred to in the joint ministerial advisory committee's review, specifically as it relates to leadership selection. It could seem that the jurisdiction is now coming from the bill itself, which I am sure would not be the intent of Parliament. Moreover, it diminishes the role of the band as a whole and gives more power to chief and council.

So for the purposes of clarity, the committee should ensure that there is a specific recognition of the current case law and inherent right of the band.

On the lack of mutual accountability, the bill should ensure that the pursuit of accountability is mutually done by both the Crown and first nations to benefit all first nation members. Accountability should go both ways, and it cannot be expected to be done in a one-way accountability from first nations, particularly as it relates to finances and financial agreements.

The Department of Indian Affairs has its own accountability requirements that can and should assist first nations in their aspirations. It is suggested that the committee consider adding additional wording in the bill that will ensure the department itself remains accountable to each first nation by ensuring that it provides services that are accountable in order to meet each particular first nation's needs and existing approaches to leadership selection, administration, and accountability.

Regarding Norway House Cree Nation, during our recent information sessions with the department, chief and council were assured time and time again by department officials that various clauses were not directed at Norway House Cree Nation, as we have been quite progressive in a number of areas. It became apparent during those reviews that a number of key things that the bill is supposed to address are already being done in Norway House, implemented, and at times exceeded by Norway House Cree Nation. This is supported by the department.

This includes financial management and accountability, with reference to our funding agreements and internal financial controls, including the “Norway House Cree Nation Policy and Procedural Guidelines”; leadership selection, referring to the Norway House Cree Nation Custom Election Procedures Act; and the administration of government, which is also covered in our “Norway House Cree Nation Policy and Procedural Guidelines”.

Throughout the recent information sessions with the department, they have stated that Norway House Cree Nation already meets financial and other accountability requirements of Bill C-7. While the whole council and a number of members of Norway House Cree Nation--including myself and Councillor Apetagon--may not necessarily agree that chief and council adheres to the local accountability schema, the question for chief and council arose as to why Norway House Cree Nation would support, or not support, a bill when it should not apply to us already, since we are already meeting and/or exceeding the various elements for leadership selection, administration, and accountability. Norway House Cree Nation has managed to address the reasons for Bill C-7 with a mixture of the existing Indian Act regime and exertion of our inherent right.

It is noted that since the people of Norway House Cree Nation have not been consulted in the development of the bill, there cannot be an informed decision by the people of the band to support the bill or not. Chief and council are managing to meet the leadership selection, administration, and accountability of Indian bands--and that is the basis for the creation of Bill C-7--so as confirmed by Indian Affairs officials, we do not need to support the legislation.

¹ (1550)

In light of the recognition by representatives of the department that Norway House Cree Nation, like a number of other first nations, has met the requirements of the bill, we would therefore respectfully ask the standing committee to seriously consider including the following recommended additional clause to Bill C-7 and ensure that it can be properly implemented.

It could be somewhere else, but here I put it as paragraph 34(a):

The Government in Council will, by order made after coming into force of this Act, exempt First Nations that have already enacted laws and created policies and procedures that meet the requirements of leadership selection, administration and accountability of this Act.

Finally, I would like to state that these comments presented are from the perspective of Norway House Cree Nation, individual chief and council members meeting. We support other first nations in their approach to the bill, and recognize that all first nations are unique and are in a better situation to speak to the bill as it relates to their first nation's aspirations and needs.

Thank you very much. I look forward to your questions and comments.

Voices: Hear, hear!

The Chair: Thank you very much. Excellent presentation.

Four minutes, Mr. Pallister.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Thank you very much for your presentation, Mr. Balfour.

I just wanted to get clarification on one of your points here, where you say, on page 5, in reference to the legislation of inherent jurisdiction, “Moreover, it diminishes the role of the Band as a whole and gives more power to Chief and Council.”

It's interesting, because you don't have very many presenters differentiate, although I do in private meetings have people differentiate those terms all the time. I want you to elaborate on how this gives more control to the chief and council and less to the band.

Mr. Marcel Balfour: I regret that I haven't been here for the whole day with respect to the presentations that have been made on collective rights and identification and legal distinctions with respect to first nations and chief and council. Locally, as well, we have issues in regard to a quorum of chief and council as well. So there are a number of distinctions that I think should be clarified.

I'm not clear, necessarily, in the bill itself, as it relates to first nations or bands or chiefs and council, what exactly is going on. That comment there....

Trust me, my presentation was going to be much longer, but it wasn't meant to be, because I know you are a very good chair.

The band as a whole refers to the inherent rights of the band as a collective, and the members of the band. The chief and council means me, for instance, and Councillor Apetagon, those who have been elected to the office of chief and council.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Okay.

Do I have time for one more quick question?

The Chair: Yes, one minute.

Mr. Brian Pallister: I'd like one other clarification as well, because you make a lot of points that require further discussion, for sure. You make the point that you support having the charter referred to in the bill, in essence so that all aboriginal Canadians would have the rights that all other Canadians enjoy under the charter. Then later you make the point about collective rights, that the act should be interpreted in a manner that takes into account the collective rights of first nations.

Those two things hit each other sometimes--the collective rights of first nations versus the rights under the charter. I've had some chiefs say to me that their collective rights should trump the charter, that they should be able to make decisions...[Editor's Note: Technical difficulty]...off reserve would be interpreted as a violation of the charter.

Can you give some clarification on that? I know it's a tough issue. If you had two days, you probably couldn't do it justice. I'm sorry to ask you such a complex question.

Mr. Marcel Balfour: I've had the pleasure of reading some of the questions you've asked other presenters. And this is an extremely complex question. I do regret that don't have the time to be able to go into this.

On the comments I was making with regard to that specific reference, I sort of see that it could possibly also be interpreted, since you're referring to the charter...you might be including aboriginal treaty rights. But I was more concerned about the lack of the non-derogation for aboriginal and treaty rights as opposed to some of the discussions that perhaps have taken place before with respect to the recognition of human rights in section 15 and those enumerated thereunder.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Martin, three minutes.

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

Again, this really doesn't give us time to do it justice, but I'd start by saying that the very first witness who came to the committee was the minister. In his opening remarks, he said this bill was written by “over 10,000 first nations people”, who worked in partnership and good faith with the government in the development of the bill.

You made the comment that there really was no meaningful consultation with your home group. Had there been adequate consultation under the real definition of true consultation, a give and take, would this be the subject matter you would choose to deal with, to amend the Indian Act, or would you have recommended you go further with the framework agreement in Manitoba or the implementation of treaties?

Would these be the priorities if there genuinely was true consultation with Norway House?

¹ (1555)

Mr. Marcel Balfour: Thank you.

I should like to say that I'm also here with my colleague, and I'd like to give him an opportunity to be able to respond to some of the questions as well.

No, there was no consultation with respect to Norway House Cree Nation and the members of Norway House Cree Nation, or the elected representatives of chief and council. As I understand it, these presentations are not necessarily with respect to what we wish with respect to this bill, at all, because that's not what's on the table. However, I've tried to make it somewhat clear that since the bill, the minister has been claiming attempts to address accountability issues, leadership issues, and all those other wonderful things, that we have already done, that wouldn't be our priority from Norway House Cree Nation. And whether or not the minister believes this needs to be done on a national level with other first nations or whatever is another issue altogether. But specifically for Norway House, we've already done it, so we don't think the bill should apply to us.

Mr. Pat Martin: Good point.

One of the recommendations of the Grand Chief from B.C., Satsan Herb George, was that this whole regime be made optional. By a majority vote, the members of any first nation could opt in to this template of governance codes, as being recommended.

Would that be an amendment you would support, then?

Mr. Marcel Balfour: I had the pleasure of being here before when there were some discussions with respect to amendments to the Indian Act awhile ago, and there was an optional clause to it. For me, I don't see why not in terms of making it optional. It was considered before, and I don't see why it can't be considered again.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Dromisky, three minutes.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Marcel, how long have you been chief?

Mr. Marcel Balfour: Not yet....

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Oh, not yet. How long have you been in a leadership role?

Mr. Marcel Balfour: I was elected last year, on March 5.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: I have so many questions I want to ask you regarding the path you've been referring to, that your people have already reached the point where they don't need to look at this bill whatsoever. How do you know you've reached that point? How do you know you've already gotten to the point where you don't have to support this legislation? It's a contradiction, in a sense, because if it was so good for your people.... In other words, you've resubscribed over a period of time. I don't know how long it took you to get to the point where you feel very confident, very secure, and satisfied that you've reached the goals that we hope our bill, Bill C-7, will reach eventually.

Why wouldn't you want everybody else to go through the same kind of process with the people on the reserve in the community to achieve exactly what you have achieved and what we're hoping everybody is going to achieve eventually?

º (1600)

Mr. Marcel Balfour: I was elected as councillor for Norway House Cree Nation, so I'm speaking with respect to Norway House Cree Nation. And that particular type of question is not relevant to Norway House as it relates to my elected position.

Are you asking me why we should not have this bill for other first nations? I believe in the end statement to my presentation I said that other first nations would probably be better to talk on that as it relates to their first nations, because they're in unique situations.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Well, that was a form of an answer, I guess.

Thank you.

The Chair: We have time for another three-minute round.

Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance): If I understand you correctly--and I'd like you to confirm that--are you saying then...and as the minister indicates, this is an interim measure down the road to self-government at some point along the way. I don't know if you've had discussions up there at Norway in respect to that. But if this is just an interim thing, and you've met a lot of these in respect of finance and management and leadership selection code, is it as troubling then if you were to really believe we're at interim-type transitional measures? Do you have the sense that this is going to be on for the next 40 or 50 years, or 100 years maybe?

Mr. Marcel Balfour: The unfortunate thing with this bill is that it doesn't have a sunset clause to be able to say that this is going to be dealing for a particular period of time. It does refer, I think, to the two-year requirement with respect to self-government agreements.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Have you had some self-government discussions to the point where you're a ways down the road on self-government discussions?

Mr. Marcel Balfour: I would think that we're a ways down the road. We have not as a chief and council sat down formally to discuss self-government, and we definitely haven't informed and consulted with the people of Norway House on whether or not we really want to go down that route, or when we want to do that, or anything like that as it relates to self-government from Norway House.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: So you have no anticipation as to when; is it 10 years off, 15 years off, 20 years off?

Mr. Marcel Balfour: I can't say, because I was only elected a year or more ago. We're more concerned about some other issues right now. One of my portfolios is social assistance and justice. There are a number of other key areas, which I think your colleague had asked about, in terms of preference for some of the things that the bill might want to be considering.

Right now, I can't comment on that, because we haven't even put that on the agenda yet.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: So you'd like to stay with the Indian Act, as flawed, troublesome, bothersome, and problematic as it is, rather than something to the end of...well, until you get to self-government.

Mr. Marcel Balfour: In terms of any proposed bill, I think it should be able to meet the aspirations of Norway House--that is, done in a way that is informed not only with the council, but also with our people, consulted in regard to saying this is what we are going to do and how we are going to approach it with respect to changing the Indian Act, and who's already addressed these issues that the minister has claimed we're supposed to be dealing with.

This bill is not relevant for Norway House. As I think some of your presenters have already stated, a number of other areas would be interesting and more relevant to first nations.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you.

Many witnesses have made the point that they find fault with the process as much as the content of Bill C-7. In fact, one of the witnesses was a person from Harvard University who wrote sort of a seminal document on governance, North American, and in first nations. They felt that it undermines the very idea of self-governance to impose a code or a regime when an integral part of self-governance is the right to develop governance institutions that reflect the community's wishes.

So I guess I'd ask you to comment on how you feel about the process versus even the content.

Mr. Marcel Balfour: The Harvard review was quite good. As it relates to self-government, whatever that is, or however that is being defined by the federal government, that is one thing. I think I caught, at the end, one of your presenters mentioning an international approach to indigenous peoples. Hopefully inherent jurisdiction, inherent rights, and the notion of self-determination are important concepts. For me, I like to have that type of discussion, but as a council, we haven't even looked at them, and as a Cree nation we haven't either.

As it relates to process, I also understand that while we could have gone on and on--and trust me, before my preparations, I was going to go on and on about the process--suffice it to say that specifically for Norway House, we haven't been engaged in that process, and that is a very problematic approach to federal legislation, as it will affect my people and the Cree nation.

Mr. Pat Martin: Subclause 9(3) deals with the obligation to show financial statements to anyone who asks, not just band members but any individual. Now, I know that Norway House has enterprises on the reserve. And as we understand it, this contemplates even your competition, if it were a private enterprise, an economic development enterprise, from off reserve being able to come forward and demand to see the financial statements of that company.

How do you feel about that? This is not just band members, but anybody.

º (1605)

Mr. Marcel Balfour: The purpose of the bill, to be accountable and transparent, is something I firmly believe in. I think if we're going to be dealing on a nation-to-nation basis as a government, to be accountable and transparent means providing that information. Providing those financial records and information means that not only myself as a member on council--even though currently I don't even have access to some of our financial records--but also our people will have the opportunity to understand what's going on with band funds or with band enterprises.

I think the approach with respect to that particular section should maybe consider the competition aspect of it. So I don't have a specific comment with respect to that but for the fact that clearly we have a number of enterprises, and we definitely wouldn't want to jeopardize our position as it relates to doing business.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey: I was very interested to read your paper. We know through independent verification what a success story Norway House is, which is great.

I guess as I read the brief, and as I hear you, I'm trying to determine in my own mind whether Bill C-7 is.... I gather you think it is almost irrelevant, because you've met the standard, but I'm trying to figure out, after all those discussions with officials, whether it's also burdensome. Or is it in that category of things where, say, a creditworthy person has to undergo a routine credit check, or a healthy person has to undergo a routine health exam for insurance purposes?

In other words, if anything, it might be described as the kind of clean bill of health on the transparency and accountability, which you recognize is needed generally by all first nations. Even though it's irrelevant, would it be that burdensome to undertake? I mean, I gather from all the discussions that every time they raised an issue, the department said, look, this doesn't apply to you, you're there, so relax.

So is your objection here that it is actually going to be burdensome despite the comments by the department, or is it one more general principle?

Mr. Marcel Balfour: Can you restate the question?

Mr. John Godfrey: Yes. Is your principal objection the fact that it's simply irrelevant because you meet most of the objectives of the bill--even though it might be a useful thing to have, it's officially sanctioned that you are transparent and accountable--or to put all that aside, is it the principle of the thing you're objecting to?

Mr. Marcel Balfour: First, I should like to say that it was the Minister of Indian Affairs himself, in addition to his representatives from the department, who said that we have this internal accountability schema. On the burdensome aspect, if what you are saying is, despite the fact that we have this, should we go ahead with this legislation because it's irrelevant to us, well, I would imagine that Parliament doesn't really want to be invoking legislation that is irrelevant anyway.

So I don't really understand that other than--

Mr. John Godfrey: My point was simply that even though you seem to be there.... You know, in life there are a number of situations where even the people who've gotten it right have to routinely go through examinations, creditworthiness exams, health exams. I'm just wondering if it's really going to be a problem for you in any practical way to fulfill this even though it's not really about you; it's about other people who may not be as far advanced as you are.

º (1610)

Mr. Marcel Balfour: Right. How it may affect Norway is potentially problematic, and in principle it's also problematic.

The Chair: Thank you very much. That completes our time, and we thank you very much for your contribution. It will be helpful. We encourage you to continue in politics.

Speaking personally, with your voice I can see you as an anchor on national news. There are people there who are scheduled to retire, and I know I would enjoy the news a lot more if I heard a voice like yours.

Voices: Oh, oh!

The Chair: Thank you.

I invite Gisèle Saurette-Roch for two minutes.

Welcome, and you may proceed.

Ms. Gisèle Saurette-Roch (As Individual): Merci beaucoup.

The Chair: Would you like to present in French?

Ms. Gisèle Saurette-Roch: No, I will do it in English.

Bon après-midi. Bonjour.

I decided to respond to the invitation of some presenters I've been hearing and working with in the last few weeks, especially when I learned there were spontaneous presentations allowed. So I am availing myself of that opportunity.

I am a community development worker, and have been a professional social worker for 30 years. I've worked with families, children, and communities, and that's the perspective I come from. I'm concerned with the global perspective as well.

I'm here to say that we cannot rush community development. I'm not familiar with all the terms and clauses of this bill, but in general matters I would like to address a few issues.

In all of these years of work, there are certain principles of community development that mean you allow the people to determine their own needs and discover their own strengths. The community development worker facilitates the process but really does not impose anything.

I would recommend seeing if there could be adjustments to allow for that. I believe two years is a very short time with the goals you have in mind.

There's another point I would like to make sure is attended to. As a matter of fact, I would like to illustrate it with two examples of response to the high level of youth suicides and drug addiction.

In the first, children were taken out of their community and treated elsewhere, and then returned to a community where nothing substantially had been changed. It was not successful, as we have seen. On the other hand, in the province next to us, there was a project where the community had some facilitators assist them with developing their own goals and issues, and the level of this tragedy decreased tremendously. I believe just last summer they celebrated an anniversary without a tragedy.

So here are two ways; it may take a little longer, but it is important to address--

The Chair: Thank you very much. That completes your time. We allowed an extra minute. If you have a written document, you may leave it with the clerk, which will be shared with all members of the committee. Thank you.

I now invite Corena Letandre.

Welcome.

Ms. Corena Letandre (As Individual): They call me Corena Letandre from Pinaymootang First Nation of Fairford, Manitoba. I am a direct descendant of a Treaty 2 signatory, my great-grandfather.

I came here to let this committee know and hear and be aware and acknowledge that this proposed Bill C-7 has not been drafted with integrity. Yes, it has flaws. It's called the First Nations Governance Act, and yet they consult with people that are not first nations; then they should have called it the “Aboriginal Governance Act”.

Yes, it has flaws, which I've heard examples of and will hear examples of in the future. If it had integrity, first nations wouldn't be here today. We wouldn't be in the position that we're in today. The streamlined process denies those lives...whose lives it affects and will affect, if this Bill C-7 is accepted as it is.

I came here as a free person. Can I vote in city elections? Can I vote in provincial and federal elections? And now I can vote in my reserve. Can I purchase goods and services with or without taxes? Can I sue for unfairness? Can I be sued for my lack of integrity, or my lack of accountability? Yes, as long as I don't declare my treaty status.

You cannot claim ownership and integrity without responsibility for its entirety. I am willing to take issue on behalf of my children. I'm willing to stand up for my country. I'm willing to ensure its integrity. Are you?

I'm willing to leave behind strong, capable women. I have two children, and they're girls. They're female. I am responsible for my children, for my family, for my community, and for my country, first, last, and most of all.

What will this parliamentary committee's legacy be? What will your legacy be, with integrity and responsibility? Can you fathom two generations from now? My great-grandfather did. That's why I'm here. Consider what you will be willing to allow to happen to your children, to your grandchildren, if you left them with people whose integrity you question.

When you draft up your recommendations for this process called Bill C-7, think of integrity and responsibility. Would you, Brian Pallister, Anita Neville, Stan Dromisky, and Raymond Bonin be willing to give up all you know right now, by Friday, as integral to your job, your own personal and moral and financial obligations to your family, community, and constituency? Would you be willing to give that up by Friday to take on a new position on Monday, but ratify the agreement on Monday once you've signed the contract?

Thank you. Meegwetch.

Voices: Hear, hear!

º (1615)

The Chair: Thank you very much. That was an excellent presentation.

We now invite Raven Thundersky. Raven is not here.

Priscilla Levasseur.

Ms. Priscilla Levasseur (As Individual): I must say, I'm really overwhelmed that I have the opportunity to speak here today. But I'm also speaking in fear, so bear with me.

º (1620)

The Chair: We just want you to know that, for us, this is the kitchen table.

Ms. Priscilla Levasseur: I'm not afraid of the people sitting here, I'm afraid of my own people.

The Chair: I understand. Thank you.

Ms. Priscilla Levasseur: In November 2002 I ran for chief. I am 27 years old and I'm a single mother. Well, I am not single now, but that's another story. At the time I was single.

I've been threatened and harassed. The election was rigged. In regard to this First Nations Governance Act, I feel that maybe something should be done about the election procedures. You have to take a step back and start from the bottom.

Right now I'm speaking on behalf of myself. I would like to speak on behalf of all people of Ebb and Flow First Nation, but I really can't at this time, because I'm not the chief. Technically, they say, I am.

I wish Brian Pallister was here. I have tried to contact him many times.

There is an RCMP investigation. It goes on. I could be here for three hours. I have all the evidence of embezzlement, threats from Chief Ralph Beaulieu. I don't know if Chief Ralph Beaulieu was here today to make his presentation on FNGA; apparently not.

The story gets worse. APTN did an interview with me for about half an hour, Bruce Spence. They will not air that, because I said in that interview, Grand Chief Dennis White Bird resign. I feel that he is incompetent. I mean, you made the remark about his coming here, that he could have had 30 or 40 minutes when he sat here for 2 minutes...how he disgraced our people like that.

Grand Chief Margaret Swan, she's so hotheaded; you can't negotiate with someone like that.

I have a lot more things to say. These two minutes aren't going to be enough. When I walk out, who knows what's going to happen to me? You don't know what our leadership is like, not at all. I am not saying that every chief across Canada is like that, but I do know things about some of the chiefs around here.

The way I see it, as a grassroots person, I want to start from the bottom and fix things. I have a structure, I have a plan. I don't totally oppose first nations governance, because the number one thing our people want is sovereignty. I may be young. I'm a woman. I speak from the heart. I don't need a piece of paper. I see all these men come up here with this piece of paper in front of them. They use big words. You don't have to use big words; we speak from here, in plain English.

I wish I could speak my language, but.... Meegwetch.

Voices: Hear, hear!

The Chair: Thank you very much. We admire your courage.

Frances Ravinsky.

Ms. Frances Ravinsky (As Individual): [Editor's Note: Technical difficulty]...away; it's important for me to hear that, actually.

The Chair: Before you start, you should know that if you give your notes to the clerk, they will be printed and shared.

Ms. Frances Ravinsky: No, this is truly spontaneous.

The Chair: Okay. Thank you.

Ms. Frances Ravinsky: I am a community development worker. Earlier this afternoon, Muriel Smith was asked a question about matrimonial property, and her answer was very important to me. She said she did not know on reserve what the understanding is of collective or individual property.

To me, that answer captures a truth that seems to have been missed in the drafting of this bill, and that is, as non-aboriginals, we truly do not know. That's not a problem in and of itself. It only becomes a problem when we think that we do know, and that we are aboriginal experts.

Last night I had the absolute privilege of attending a presentation by two men from Cross Lake. I think it's called Pimicikamak, but it's very difficult for me, as a non-aboriginal, to get the Cree and Ojibway words in my head, so I do not know. At any rate, I had the privilege of listening to the work that's been done in this nation on creating governance structures and processes. And it seems to me the Canadian government and Canadian society have much to learn from that work, which is that embedded in the core of it is consensus.

At the end of the presentation, somebody in the audience asked what would happen if the bill passed, and the answer was, “We will continue.”

A presenter earlier this afternoon talked about the winds of change. Over and over, when I visit reserves, I hear the words, “We've awakened”, which are powerful words that I think are referring to the same idea. And my understanding is that when people wake up, they don't go back to sleep. The awakening that people are talking about here is the awakening to 150 years of oppression, of colonization.

So my preference would be, rather than the Government of Canada and the Minister of Indian Affairs coming to aboriginal nations and saying, “Would you like to come to consultations?”, that the government approach aboriginal nations and say, “How can we help you develop your own governance structures and processes, how can we help you recover; what can we do?”

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I invite Marjorie Prince.

Welcome.

Ms. Marjorie Prince (As Individual): Thank you.

I'm a band member from Dakota Tipi First Nation, and I'd just like to say a few things for the record.

I'd like to say that neither Margaret Swan nor Dennis White Bird participated in or initiated mediation on Dakota Tipi First Nation. I feel it is important to let people know that they never had anything to do with mediation in our community.

I'd also like to say that the mediation was first initiated by our councillors, David Pashe and Arden Pashe, and our MLA, David Faurschou. They were the first ones to initiate this.

I'd like to say that we had our election October 28. We suffered a lot, the women and children on Dakota Tipi, to get the election. We were denied food, medical services, education, and bus services; those are just a few of the things we were denied. We faced a lot of violence to get the election and democracy on our reserve, and for speaking out openly.

I would just like to say that I believe there are problems ahead on Dakota Tipi, but I also believe a lot of it is initiated by the third party, and in the Department of Indian Affairs, that are keeping a lot of the division in our community. I believe in my heart that Dakota Tipi can heal.

Presently we're asking for a public inquiry on where all the money went. We were pleased to hear that Dennis Pashe also wants to have a public inquiry.

That's really all I want to say.

Thank you.

º (1625)

The Chair: We thank you very much.

For a final presentation, we invite Donovan Jacobs.

Just a moment; were you part of the delegation before?

Mr. Donovan Jacobs (As Individual): Yes, I was.

The Chair: I'm sorry, we can't hear from you twice.

Mr. Donovan Jacobs: Okay.

The Chair: It should have been picked up before; I apologize.

This concludes our public hearings for today and for Winnipeg. We'd like to thank this community, this region. This was a full day, an excellent day.

We didn't get feedback on the demonstration outside, but I know it was orderly.

Personally, I encourage that; I encourage people to stand up. I and I'm sure others are in politics because we don't like the way things are going. If everything was perfect, personally I'd go fishing.

To all of you who have contributed, we thank you. We wish you farewell.

We will resume proceedings when we get to Thunder Bay tomorrow.