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

Monday, February 17, 2003

1305

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

Mr. Gregg Smith (Chief Executive Officer, Treaty 7 Tribal Council)

1310

The Chair

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

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

1315

Mr. Gregg Smith

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Gregg Smith

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Gregg Smith

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Gregg Smith

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.)

Mr. Gregg Smith

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Mr. Eugene Creighton (Technical Supporter, Treaty 7 Tribal Council)

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Mr. Gregg Smith

Mr. Charles Hubbard

1320

Mr. Gregg Smith

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Mr. Gregg Smith

The Chair

1325

Mr. Gregg Smith

The Chair

Mr. Gregg Smith

The Chair

Mr. Gregg Smith

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Gregg Smith

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Gregg Smith

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Eugene Creighton

1330

The Chair

Mr. Eugene Creighton

The Chair

Mr. Eugene Creighton

The Chair

1335

Mr. Gregg Smith

The Chair

Chief Morris Monias (Tribal Chiefs Ventures)

The Chair

Chief Morris Monias

Mr. Dave Scott (Executive Director, Tribal Chiefs Ventures)

The Chair

Chief Morris Monias

1340

1345

The Chair

Chief Morris Monias

The Chair

1350

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief Morris Monias

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Dave Scott

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Dave Scott

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Dave Scott

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Dave Scott

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Mr. Dave Scott

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Mr. Dave Scott

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Mr. Dave Scott

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Mr. Dave Scott

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Mr. Dave Scott

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Mr. Dave Scott

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Mr. Dave Scott

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Mr. Dave Scott

1355

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Chief Morris Monias

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Chief Morris Monias

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Chief Morris Monias

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Chief Morris Monias

Mr. Charles Hubbard

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief Morris Monias

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief Morris Monias

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Dave Scott

1400

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Ms. Helen Gladue (Vice-Chairperson and Advisor, Advisory Council of Treaty 6 Women)

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Ms. Helen Gladue

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Ms. Helen Gladue

1405

Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, Lib.)

Chief Morris Monias

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Ms. Helen Gladue

1410

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Ms. Helen Gladue

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Ms. Helen Gladue

1415

The Chair

Chief Morris Monias

The Chair

Mr. Howard Mustus (Executive Officer, Yellowhead Tribal Council)

1420

Mr. Dennis Callihoo (Legal Counsel, Yellowhead Tribal Council)

1425

1430

1435

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Howard Mustus

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Howard Mustus

1440

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Howard Mustus

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Howard Mustus

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Howard Mustus

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Howard Mustus

1445

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Howard Mustus

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Howard Mustus

The Chair

Mr. Howard Mustus

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

1450

Mr. Howard Mustus

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Mr. Howard Mustus

1455

The Chair

Mr. Howard Mustus

The Chair

Mr. Howard Mustus

The Chair

Chief Roderick Alexis (Alexis First Nation)

1500

1505

1510

1515

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief Roderick Alexis

1520

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief Roderick Alexis

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Ms. Eileen Sasakamoose (Legal Counsel, Alexis First Nation)

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Ms. Eileen Sasakamoose

1525

The Chair

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

Ms. Eileen Sasakamoose

1530

The Chair

Chief Roderick Alexis

The Chair

Ms. Lorraine Moyah (Councillor, Frog Lake First Nation)

1535

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

1540

Ms. Lorraine Moyah

Chief Raymond Quinney (Frog Lake First Nation)

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief Raymond Quinney

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Raymond Quinney

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief Raymond Quinney

The Chair

Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian Alliance)

1545

Chief Raymond Quinney

Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, Lib.)

Chief Raymond Quinney

The Chair

1550

Mr. Glen Generoux (Financial Controller, Enoch Cree Nation)

1555

1600

The Chair

Mr. Glen Generoux

The Chair

Mr. Glen Generoux

The Chair

Mr. Glen Generoux

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Glen Generoux

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Glen Generoux

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Glen Generoux

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Grand Chief Lorne Morin (Confederacy of Treaty 6 First Nations)

The Chair

1605

Chief George Les Minde (Ermineskin First Nation)

1610

The Chair

Mr. Gordon Lee (Ermineskin First Nation)

1615

1620

The Chair

1625

Mr. Gordon Lee

The Chair

Mr. Gordon Lee

The Chair

Mr. David Chatters

Chief George Les Minde

Mr. Gordon Lee

Mr. David Chatters

Mr. Gordon Lee

Mr. David Chatters

Chief George Les Minde

Mr. David Chatters

The Chair

Mr. Rick Laliberte

1630

Chief George Les Minde

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

1635

Mr. Gordon Lee

The Chair

Mr. David Chatters

The Chair

Mr. David Chatters

The Chair

Mr. David Chatters

The Chair

Mr. Gordon Lee

The Chair

1640

Mr. Bruce Starlight (Councillor, Tsuu T'ina First Nation)

The Chair

Mr. Bruce Starlight

1645

The Chair

Mr. Bruce Starlight

The Chair

Mr. Bruce Starlight

Ms. Regena Crowchild (Councillor, Tsuu T'ina First Nation)

1650

1655

The Chair

Mr. Bruce Starlight

1700

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Ms. Regena Crowchild

1705

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Bruce Starlight

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Mr. Bruce Starlight

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Mr. Bruce Starlight

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Mr. Bruce Starlight

Mr. Charles Hubbard

1710

Mr. Sandford Big Plume ( Policy Analyst and Research Director, Tsuu T'ina First Nation)

1715

The Chair

Mr. Sandford Big Plume

The Chair

Mr. Sandford Big Plume

1720

Ms. Regena Crowchild

The Chair

Mr. Rene Metacat (Individual Presentation)

1725

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. David Daniels (Individual Presentation)

The Chair

Mr. David Daniels

The Chair

1730

Ms. Terry Daniels (Individual Presentation)

The Chair

Mr. Percy Potts (Individual Presentation)

1735

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources

NUMBER 028

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Monday, February 17, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

· (1305)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.)): We will resume proceedings on public hearings of Bill C-7, an act respecting leadership selection, administration, and accountability of Indian bands, and to make related amendments to other acts.

We're pleased to welcome, from the Treaty 7 Tribal Council, Mr. Gregg Smith, chief executive officer; Chief Chris Shade, technical supporter; and Eugene Creighton, another technical supporter. Welcome.

We have 45 minutes together. I apologize for starting late. Your local media wanted an impression of our side of it. We won't take that time from you. We'll extend it.

We invite you to make your presentation.

Mr. Gregg Smith (Chief Executive Officer, Treaty 7 Tribal Council): Thank you very much.

Good afternoon to everyone on the standing committee. First of all, let me welcome you to Treaty 7 traditional territory. Red Deer South represents Treaty 7 traditional territory.

Our submission today goes along the lines of speaking to the bill that is before us. I want to talk a little bit, if you'll follow along with the executive summary in our presentation.

Treaty 7 Tribal Council was incorporated in 1989 under the Alberta Societies Act. We are an incorporated entity; we are not a first nations government. Its members include the Blood Kainaiwa Tribe; Piikani Nation; the community from which I'm from, the Siksika Nation; Stoney Nation—Bearspaw, Chiniki, and Wesley Bands; and the Tsuu T'ina Nation, or the Treaty 7 tribes of southern Alberta.

The objects of the Treaty 7 Tribal Council include, among other things, protecting the treaty and constitutional rights of Treaty 7 tribes, and actively pursuing the common political goals of the tribes, keeping in mind the spirit and intent of Treaty No. 7.

Concerning Treaty 7 and the relationship with Canada, Treaty 7 was entered into in September 1877—our 125th anniversary just happened this past September—between Her Majesty and the Treaty 7 tribes, at Blackfoot Crossing.

The treaty is a sacred and lasting agreement and is the foundation upon which the relationship with Canada rests. The Treaty 7 tribes have honoured the agreement they made pursuant to that treaty--that is, to keep peace and share their lands with the newcomers. Canada, however, has not been so honourable in keeping its treaty promises to Treaty 7 tribes.

When the Treaty 7 tribes entered into negotiations with the Crown's representatives at Blackfoot Crossing, they did so as self-governing tribes. The treaty discussions took place on this nation-to-nation basis.

Canada has not honoured its agreement with Treaty 7 tribes, and relevant to this submission is its interference in the internal affairs and governance systems of Treaty 7 tribes. This was accomplished through the imposition of federal laws designed to promote and protect federal policies of assimilation.

At the negotiations leading up to Treaty 7, the Crown's representatives did not inform Treaty 7 tribes that the Indian Act had been enacted the year previously. The Crown failed to explain that the paternalistic and restrictive provisions of the Indian Act would apply to Treaty 7 tribes and undermine the agreement evidenced by the treaty. Subsequent dealings between the parties were controlled by the provisions of the Indian Act rather than the treaty.

Since its inception in 1876, the Indian Act has been modified, amended, and at times replaced, all in the absence of acknowledging the treaty relationship and the agreements that arise from the treaties. The legislative control of the Indian Act extended to the cultural, political, social, and economic areas of the Treaty 7 tribes. Not only were they not told that the Indian Act existed, they were also not told how it would come to completely dominate our lives.

As for the First Nations Governance Act, the minister now proposes legislation that purports to remedy the failings of the current Indian Act in relation to first nations governance. It remains presumptuous and paternalistic. Bill C-7, the First Nations Governance Act, has serious implications for Treaty 7 tribes. Any attempts to deal with first nations governance must begin with the treaty and include bona fide and meaningful discussions with first nations on the same nation-to-nation basis that the treaties were negotiated.

We have set out concerns with the First Nations Governance Act in greater detail in our submission and provided recommendations for each of our concerns. For the purposes of this executive summary, we set out our recommendations, which illustrate our concerns.

First, the Treaty 7 Tribal Council recommends that the minister not proceed with the First Nations Governance Act.

· (1310)

We further recommend that the minister uphold the honour of the Crown by acknowledging the treaty relationship with various first nations, including the Treaty 7 tribes, and use that as the starting point for all discussions on first nations governance, rather than legislation proposed on his unilateral action.

In terms of non-derogation, the tribal council recommends that if the minister proceeds with the First Nations Governance Act regardless of the protests of treaty first nations, the FNGA must include within its body a non-derogation clause that clearly states that the legislation will have no effect on section 35, aboriginal and treaty rights.

The Treaty 7 Tribal Council recommends that the fiduciary relationship and Canada's obligations arising from that relationship be recognized and protected. It is imperative that the First Nations Governance Act contain a provision stating that it does not have the effect of amending, reducing, or eliminating the fiduciary relationship and Canada's fiduciary obligation.

As for the codes and ratification process, the tribal council recommends that the draft requirements for the default codes, which will be set out in the regulations of the First Nations Governance Act, be provided to first nations as soon as possible so that they can determine their requirements and therefore make an informed decision as to whether to develop their own codes or come under the default codes.

The tribal council recommends that the existing custom election bylaws of first nations, including the Treaty 7 tribes, be deemed to meet the requirements for leadership selection, which would have the effect of bypassing the ratification requirement.

The tribal council recommends that the time period for the development and ratification of codes be increased so as to give the first nations, including Treaty 7 tribes, sufficient time to develop and ratify their codes.

The tribal council also recommends that the definition of “eligible voter” be amended to accommodate the customs of those first nations, including Treaty 7 tribes, that provide for a voting age that is different from 18 years of age.

Finally, concerning funding, the tribal council recommends that the First Nations Governance Act include a clause that requires Canada to sufficiently fund first nations so that they can meet its requirements. Sufficient funding requires consideration of membership numbers, the land base of reserves, and the initial and ongoing costs to meet first nations governments' requirements.

That is our presentation.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Colleagues? Mr. Vellacott?

Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance): I have my mouth full of candy, so if somebody else wants to start, they can go ahead.

The Chair: Do you have any questions?

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I have a question to ask.

The Chair: We'll wait for you.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: If you're ready, Mr. Vellacott, the floor is yours.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: My question is about the default codes. We've made the point in committee that in effect it's a blank cheque. We don't know what those default codes look like. That has been of concern to us. I'm wondering if there have been any representations made to you to the effect that after this bill goes through the House, you will be consulted and there will be a collaborative or cooperative working out of whatever these default codes might be. Have you had any communication in that regard?

· (1315)

Mr. Gregg Smith: At this point in time no representation has been made to us in relation to default codes being developed. However, going by the past record of government in relation to dealing with issues around legislation and policy development, there have to be some in place. We'll receive them when they're ready to be implemented.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Are you telling me that you think they will be unilaterally imposed upon you, that one day you'll receive a notice in the mail saying these are the codes?

Mr. Gregg Smith: That has been the process for years.

The Chair: I think I should clarify this. The minister is on record as saying that they will be developed with first nations. I'm not here to defend the minister. I'm not the chair of a government committee; I'm the chair of a House of Commons committee. But he is on record as committing to that.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Right, and I'm aware of that being on record, Mr. Chair. But I think it does highlight the fact that somebody's not necessarily taking that at face value.

My other question would relate to this issue of the time required. You feel that this is really quite inadequate in terms of time allowed. Is it just an issue of more time, that if you had more time it would be adequate for you to fill in the blanks here for Bill C-7? What if you had five years, or four years?

Mr. Gregg Smith: The time we're looking for in terms of first nations becoming involved in the process includes first nations involvement in the development of the legislation, not only in relation to the codes that are expected, and ratification of those codes, but the whole process. First nations leadership has not been involved in the process. In some other areas of the country they may have been, but in Alberta, and particularly in Treaty 7, our position is based on our treaty position in relation to governance, so that is what we're looking at in terms of time. We want more time to deal with the issue of the legislation itself, the development of the legislation, and how it impacts the treaty.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Did your bands take part or did you choose to become part of these “so-called consultations”? We hear some have questions about whether it was real consultation or not.

Mr. Gregg Smith: I understand there were information sessions held within our community. The Treaty 7 Tribal Council was not part of the information sessions or the so-called consultation process on Bill C-7.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Hubbard.

Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): We were led to believe that there would be consultation, and some first nations groups decided not to participate. Is that what has happened with the Treaty 7 group?

Mr. Gregg Smith: The incorporated entity of the Treaty 7 Tribal Council did not participate in the information sessions regarding the First Nations Governance Act. As I said, I believe there were information sessions held, but I have not seen any record of any discussions held at those information sessions as to concerns and issues regarding Bill C-7.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Mr. Chair, it was our understanding that the offer was out there and maybe some letters did get to the wrong place.

Mr. Eugene Creighton (Technical Supporter, Treaty 7 Tribal Council): Could I comment on that?

I think it has to be understood that the process of a piece of draft legislation being tabled with first nations and then the minister or the department coming in and asking the first nations that they contribute to it or comment on it was the problem. I think the concern was that the minister or the department should have come to first nations first, before even a draft was attempted. That's where the problem is.

Yes, one can say the opportunity was there. At every one I attended, it was clear on the record that this was not a consultation as defined, and “consultation” remains to be interpreted in various ways.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Mr. Vellacott referred to I think a two-year period in terms of trying to develop codes and so forth. I think in your brief you said that is too short a time, Mr. Smith, to try to get something in place in terms of Bill C-7 and what might come from it.

Mr. Gregg Smith: Yes, we're saying it's too short a time period.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: If you compared your own methods and procedures and your bylaws and all this in terms of what Bill C-7 seems to talk about, are there great differences? What would be the most offending or difficult part of that in terms of the way you see the idea of how your chief and council...? They talk about a period of time that this chief and council will be in office; they talk about developing budgets, of trying to have long-term economic planning, of having a transparent system of reporting revenues, expenses, and all that. But do you have that already? What parts of that would be difficult for you to address in terms of the way you and your people perceive it?

· (1320)

Mr. Gregg Smith: I think it's the whole idea of the imposition of such a piece of legislation on first nations. Some of our first nations, particularly in Treaty 7, have already begun that process of defining their leadership selection and their financial bylaws and codes, all those issues that Bill C-7 tries to address. Bill C-7 doesn't even recognize first nations governance as it is, let alone what it's trying to impose.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: We talk about what came first, the chicken or the egg. Maybe you're ahead of Bill C-7 in terms of the work you've done over the years of your governance.

Mr. Gregg Smith: I have a personal point to make in relation to the whole issue regarding Bill C-7 and any other piece of legislation. This is not my first presentation. It is my first presentation to this particular standing committee of the 37th Parliament, second session. I have appeared before the Senate committee on the firearms legislation. We were left in the dark there as well. We were told, yes, we'll deal with your issues in the regulations, and stuff like that. Nothing was done regarding the firearms legislation and dealing with first nations issues, and we're still dealing with that.

I think one of the biggest problems we have to deal with, never mind first nations governance, is the whole issue of program policy renewal. Policy for federal government programming is so ancient—and by ancient I mean the early 1980s and mid-1980s—it doesn't fit today's market in terms of dealing with first nations needs.

I don't see Bill C-7 addressing things like that. I don't know if it's government policy that program policy cannot be changed, but we're being told constantly by the bureaucracy that we can't change program policy. Those are the real issues that impact first nations governance and being able to plan and take economic initiatives for the future.

The First Nations Governance Act is not going to correct that. Those are the issues that need to be corrected—and policy renewal in conjunction with first nations, not in isolation from first nations and first nations needs.

The Chair: This committee is mandated to deal with Bill C-7. A number of witnesses tell us to scrap it. Assuming we could and we scrapped it, we're left with the Indian Act. Are we better off?

You say you want to be consulted at the draft level. Sending a bill to committee after first reading is the closest thing you'll ever get to draft level, and it's been sent here. We are spending nine weeks consulting. We're here to consult you, and I ask you, how are you going to help us make this bill better? That's what we're doing: we're consulting. Give us some tools to make Bill C-7 better, at least, because you're the experts. That's why we're coming to you—all of you, all of the witnesses.

So far we haven't been given too much help to make it better, and nobody says that if we scrap Bill C-7 we're better off with the Indian Act. So we have a difficult job, and we're not getting too much help to do the job right. We want to know how you feel about it. We need your help.

· (1325)

Mr. Gregg Smith: As to my opening comment in the presentation, I spoke specifically about the relationship between our people and Canada. That is a treaty relationship. I think if we started from that point in relation to building any type of legislation in this country that recognizes that relationship—and that's an historical relationship, and we are in our traditional territory.... We should start from that first, in relation to any bill, let alone Bill C-7

The Chair: But we can't as a committee--do you understand that?

Mr. Gregg Smith: But you can make recommendations for change and make sure the bill includes that recognition.

The Chair: We can go back to Ottawa, we can go back into our caucuses, and do all those good things, and probably we will. But we still have to deal with Bill C-7, and we need help to make it better. If we send it back the way it is, we've worked hard but we haven't done a very good job. And without your help it's difficult for us to make changes to the bill, to say “The department wants this. We think they're wrong because of the testimony we heard, and we're going to amend it.” That's where we need your help.

Mr. Gregg Smith: That's what I'm saying, Mr. Chair. If in Bill C-7 you do not recognize the treaty relationship, it's not going to make it better.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: So if there were something in the way of a verbal acknowledgment of that—non-derogation, the fiduciary responsibility—and then, if the ratification of the codes you mentioned or your concerns about the default code were transparent; if we recommended that the existing election bylaws be recognized, and that the time period be lengthened; if eligible voter issues were addressed, would that satisfy all the concerns you would have, and then Bill C-7 would maybe be salvageable based on that, if all of these issues were addressed? Is that what I'm hearing you say?

Mr. Gregg Smith: Those are just recommendations based on what was presented in Bill C-7. But to make Bill C-7 better, recognize our treaty relationships.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: So if all of these recommendations—and one one of your recommendations of course is recognizing the treaty relationship—were covered off, somewhere within Bill C-7, meaning it was radically amended, in some places changed or adjusted elsewhere, then is Bill C-7 something to work with?

Mr. Gregg Smith: From a tribal council perspective, probably, but I don't know if it would be from a first nations government perspective.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Thank you.

The Chair: We offer you time for closing remarks. Do you have any, any one of the three of you?

Mr. Eugene Creighton: Mr. Chairman, just to follow up on Mr. Vellacott's question and comment, being backed into a corner and then being asked, “Where do you want this thing changed, because you already have it, or you're going to get it?” makes it difficult to answer. It's a double-edged sword, where if you answer one way—“Yes, it'll work”—are we then submitting to the FNGA? If it's not going to work, then you throw the question, Mr. Chairman, “What are your other recommendations?” It's almost really coming to us with the notion that the FNGA is here and it's going to go—with some adjustments, maybe, depending on what the committee puts together after these submissions.

It is very difficult to answer those questions when I think the premise a tribal council should start with is that it is against the passing of the FNGA—subject to treaty discussions. I don't know—I haven't been here for the past day or so—but I would assume that the issues surround treaty discussions, before you get into major renovations of current legislation.

Then there's the issue of the fiduciary relationship between the Crown and the first nations, which was not addressed in this draft legislation. In our view, it is very offensive for the government of this country to come to first nations and say “Here are some default codes that will take care of the problems you probably have”, when it did not consider the existing codes first nations have. It is offensive, to the extent it might be presumed first nations don't have existing codes to do their custom elections, to do their membership codes, financial codes—any other area that deals with the issues of transparency and accountability, or redress—that those types of draft legislation are tabled with first nations without giving consideration to existing codes.

It's almost like saying “Tomorrow you first nations will start electing your officials in this manner”; or, if you have existing codes, “You must ratify it”. In Treaty 7, there are probably 20,000 to 25,000 first nations people making up the five first nation bands. It's going to be a real exercise to get the ratification put in to support any change.

What that does is simply bring us back to the first nations communities, and you start the whole issue of having to sell something—for example, a membership code or an election code—to the members of your community and have them vote on it again, when they've already voted on it, ratified it. Those are some of the concerns—and I think probably more correctly, the issues—that first nations have. The fact is that no consideration is given to those first nations who have these existing policies and codes and so on.

Thank you, sir.

· (1330)

The Chair: One of the areas where I have some difficulty is witnesses telling us they want to negotiate and dialogue nose to nose, eyeball to eyeball, with the government. In the same presentation, they say “Show us the codes”. If the minister were showing you codes, it would mean it was done by the government alone, and it has a commitment to doing it with the aboriginal community.

So I have a problem with the development of regulations and codes in partnership, while hearing “Show me the codes”.

Mr. Eugene Creighton: If I may—

The Chair: Help me out.

Mr. Eugene Creighton: If I may just help you out on that, we call the department, and nobody knows where the default codes are at. We don't know if they are already being drafted or if they have been drafted or not. Then if we submit to the request from Canada saying “Help us out here”, are we then conceding to that request to assist in default coding?

The other important point to be raised here is that Canada forever paints first nations across the country as all the same. You have Crees who came in here; you have Chippewayan Indians coming in; you have Blackfoot Indians coming in. We're not all the same, and that is one of the major problems: the Indian Act deals with one act for all Indians, and it just doesn't work that way. And that is what the FNGA is doing.

Our preference would be, probably, specific references to various first nations in any federal exercise.

The Chair: I think it's reasonable to assume that if we take all the first nations bands that have excellent administrations, and I believe there are many, then the codes that they have for themselves will probably resemble one another. If the codes and the regulations are developed using the existing best practices, which are there, then you would continue to do what you are doing now and you would probably set the codes for others who don't have those best practices.

I'd rather believe that they would come in partnership with the government, but who knows better how to do it than you? And it would be terrible to take good practices and change them just for the sake of being the boss. So I would hope that at the end of this exercise the codes and regulations will have been influenced more by first nations than by anyone else.

Another thing I'd like to clear up is this. When they say two years to develop codes, it's two years after the regulations and the agreements have been put in place.

Do you have other comments?

· (1335)

Mr. Gregg Smith: When you talk about using best practices, the only danger of that is, again, it almost paints with one brush. That would almost see government as involving themselves in the drafting of policy regarding customs.

Our customs are different. I'm a Blackfoot Indian. I come from the Piikani Nation, part of the Blackfoot Confederacy. Our customs are different from the Cree customs, from the Chippewa and the Stoney and the Tsuu T'ina customs.

Again, using the best practices, it's almost the same as saying the government is now going to involve itself in defining what customs should be for first nations people. I caution the use of that whole idea regarding best practices.

The Chair: Thank you very much. That was very interesting.

We now move to welcome at the table, from the Tribal Chiefs Ventures, Chief Morris Monias and Dave Scott, executive director.

Chief, we invite you to make a presentation and we also invite you to introduce your colleagues to us. We have 45 minutes together.

Chief Morris Monias (Tribal Chiefs Ventures): First, I'd like to take this time to thank the committee for allowing us to make this presentation on behalf of the Tribal Chiefs Association.

I come from the Heart Lake First Nation. I belong to the Tribal Chiefs Association, which is a tribal council. I have here with me Elder Helen Gladue, Chief Raymond Quinney of Frog Lake First Nation, and Dave Scott, executive director of the tribal council.

The Chair: Before you proceed, I'd like to respond already. You say you would like to thank us for allowing you to make this presentation. That is not what we're doing. We come here asking you for help. Your presence here is valuable to us, so it's not a permission we give; we're begging for your help.

Chief Morris Monias: Thank you.

I have a presentation; I believe you have copies of it.

Do they have copies?

Mr. Dave Scott (Executive Director, Tribal Chiefs Ventures): The copies were forwarded. It was e-mailed in a couple of weeks ago.

The Chair: Then we should have it back in Ottawa, but we certainly will get copies translated for everybody.

Proceed.

Chief Morris Monias: On behalf of the first nations of the Tribal Chiefs Association--namely, Beaver Lake Cree Nation, Cold Lake First Nation, Frog Lake First Nation, Heart Lake First Nation, Kehewin Cree Nation, Whitefish Lake First Nation Number 128--I would like to begin. I won't say thank you for this opportunity...but allowing us to speak here before you today.

The federal Government of Canada, through the First Nations Governance Act, the FNGA, is purporting to enact legislation that will benefit our first nations citizens, our first nations, and all Canadians. The rationale of the federal Government of Canada is that the Indian Act is outdated and it does not promote effective first nations government.

The relationship between the federal Government of Canada and our first nations needs to be changed, modernized, and updated. Legislation is needed to improve the quality of life for first nations, and legislation is required to give more effective tools of governance to first nations so that they can have a strong governance regime that will support the socio-economic well-being of first nations.

The FNGA is presented and purportedly based on a consultation process undertaken by the federal Government of Canada that examines leadership selection, voting rights, which deal with such topics as elections, eligibility, qualification, term of office and council structure; accountability of first nations citizens, which includes the rules and responsibilities of band councils, band administrators, and first nation institutions, political and financial accountability mechanisms, ways to appeal decisions and actions of first nations governments and institutions, and disclosure and access to information; and legal standing capacity, which deals with such topics as clear legal capacity of first nations, increased authority of first nations over the areas of financial management, bylaws, and the way these authorities are exercised.

As a result of the above rationale and consultation, the FNGA is being proposed, along with other pieces of legislation referred to by the federal government as the Government of Canada's first nations legislative suite. Although the above rationale and consultation process sounds reasonable at first glance, it is missing several essential ingredients.

First, it does not recognize that the TCA first nations are signatories to Treaty 6, 1876, and that the treaty must become part of the rationale. On the consultation process, for example, under the powers of band council, we contend that the FNGA, like the Constitution that embraces it, must secure our capacity to preserve and implement the terms of Treaty 6, and therefore it must include provisions to ensure that the accountability and support of non-indigenous levels of government are pursuing such ends.

Secondly, the TCA first nations were not properly consulted by the federal Government of Canada, as required under treaty and bylaw.

In the high court's decision in Badger v. The Queen, the Queen states that enforceable obligations must be based on mutual consent of the crown and native peoples. The message in the above clearly precludes the unilateral decisions on the part of either or any party that mutual consent implies. A take-it-or-leave-it approach is out of the question. Yet acceptance of unilaterally determined funding of programs crucially central to the maintenance of peace, order, and good government is often contingent on the programs receiving any funding.

The TCA first nations are party to a legal action presently before the court that disputes and challenges the federal government's consultation process. As this case has not yet been decided, we will leave this issue, but we do make the point that there was a lack of proper and full consultation.

The TCA first nations believe that the FNGA represents the framework of the federal Government of Canada, for the federal Government of Canada. This legislation is not first nations legislation and it does not take into account or respect our culture, tradition, laws, and beliefs as distinct peoples.

· (1340)

The FNGA is attempting to restructure the federal Government of Canada's legal, political, physical, and fiduciary relationship with our first nation through a foreign municipal-type relationship, which is unacceptable to our first nations. Accordingly, we believe that this legislation is doomed to failure from the very beginning. The federal Government of Canada is attempting to force legislation through the FNGA that will create political and administrative anarchy, rather than meeting the objectives of the federal government to promote peace, order, and good government on our first nations.

The FNGA will eliminate the treaty obligation as follows. It will promote the introduction of more unilateral legislative initiatives and government policies, such as the First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act, Bill C-19, and the Specific Claims Resolution Act, Bill C-6; assimilate the TCA first nations into mainstream society by forcing and not recognizing and respecting our laws and spirituality and the collective needs of our culture; further taper funding, so that currently underfunded programs will be further underfunded and be doomed to failure, even though we have no jurisdiction over the physical design of these programs; and with the ministry, obligations, and responsibilities of the federal Government of Canada, off-load the federal Government of Canada's responsibility under section 91(24) of the Constitution Act to the provincial governments, who are not party to Treaty 6; allow manipulation and coercing of the TCA first nations by forcing first nation governments to sign funding agreements containing provisions not agreed upon, or to lose their funding; allow the misuse of statistical data and information in relation to funding criteria and programming; allow the federal Government of Canada to manipulate the media and public to serve its own purposes; bar the TCA first nations from a true bilateral process; and inhibit the legal capacities of the first nation governments to exercise jurisdiction over their lands, peoples, and resources.

The TCA first nations have the legal capacity of a government to exercise jurisdiction, not only over their lands, people, and resources, but they can also pass their laws down according to their own doctrines.

It is our contention that the existence, scope, and implementation of treaty rights are ongoing considerations central to our well-being as treaty first nations. We also contend that implementation follows from an evolving interpretation of our treaty and how it is to be appropriately expressed, and how all parties—including indigenous and non-indigenous governments—are to be held accountable in changing times to the terms of the treaty.

The last 125 years have caused mistrust and misunderstanding simply because of the fact that exploitative, discriminatory, and dominating foreign philosophies have been pushed on us. We are offering an invitation to restore new trust and understanding through true listening and two-way participation in a process leading to empathy and understanding and ultimately to the support of both parties.

This presentation overviews some of the concerns we have, and is taken from our more detailed and extensive position paper on the FNGA. We request that the standing committee take back this message: that the FNGA must be quashed and that full and complete discussions must start with TCA first nations. We further request that you establish a meeting with our first nations, the Prime Minister of Canada, and the Governor General of Canada, so that our detailed position paper can be discussed in a fair and appropriate environment.

Thank you.

· (1345)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Are there any others who have a presentation to make?

Chief Morris Monias: That's it.

The Chair: Thank you.

We will proceed to questions. Mr. Vellacott.

· (1350)

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Your comment at the very end intrigued me. I assume you are probably in some way part of the Assembly of First Nations, is that correct?

Chief Morris Monias: My lawyer will answer that.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Oh, your lawyer will answer that.

Mr. Dave Scott: We're not members of the AFN.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Okay, that was the drift of my question. I was wondering if, in terms of meeting the Government of Canada on a government-to-government basis, you were talking about doing this through the AFN. Obviously, by way of Dave's response, you would not regard them to be your representative group.

Could you give me an idea if that would be true of a good number of the other tribal councils in Alberta? Are there many that are outside the AFN within your province?

Mr. Dave Scott: Again, I can talk only about the Tribal Chiefs Association. I know the next presentation is by the Yellowhead Tribal Council. You could probably ask them. I know from our tribal council's point of view, we're not part of the AFN and we have a different position from the AFN.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Okay.

I guess my standard question is getting to be a little repetitious, but in your view, is there nothing of redeeming value or virtue in this bill at all? Is there nothing to be gained by it? Am I to understand that plainly and simply, throughout? You'd rather stay with the Indian Act for the present?

Mr. Dave Scott: That's our position.

I've heard presentations this morning, and I believe that is the consistent approach.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: So as bad as the Indian Act is--and people agree there are flaws, there are problems--it's better than jumping into something different or having an interim measure, even?

Mr. Dave Scott: It's better than what's being proposed here, I believe. That's our position.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: We're led to believe that the AFN represents all chiefs in Canada. They quote 600 or more. Are you saying that none of your chiefs belong to the AFN, or that your council doesn't belong?

Mr. Dave Scott: Well, our council doesn't belong on an individual basis. You'd have to ask each one of them. But the majority of our council--the first nations within our chiefs' association--don't belong to it, or we would not belong to it as a tribal council.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: We're a little taken aback on that, because we've always been led to believe the chief speaks for all. I guess he has votes and that, and we hear of a vote of 100 people, but that may quantify some of the presentations we've heard.

Also, in terms of consultation, the minister has led us to believe that the offer was out and a good effort was made to get all the various groups to participate in the preparation of this bill. Are we misled in that, or did your tribal council not see the benefit of participating in the consultative process?

Mr. Dave Scott: Well, from the tribal council's point of view, we did not take any funding and we were not contacted with regard to consultation. Again, I don't want to get into this too much, because we have a room half this size full of back-up information because it is currently with the courts.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Are you saying that you were not offered, or you didn't want to participate?

Mr. Dave Scott: We weren't offered. Or if we were offered, it was on terms that were not suitable for us.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: I'm still confused. You're a lawyer and I'm not.

Mr. Dave Scott: That's what we're supposed to do.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Were you offered and the terms weren't satisfactory? What are we getting at?

Mr. Dave Scott: I guess we were offered, but the terms were unsatisfactory.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: I just wondered.

Mr. Dave Scott: The strings attached weren't acceptable.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: It wasn't to your satisfaction.

Mr. Dave Scott: So we did not participate.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: As a lawyer, can we talk about these codes? The idea of Bill C-7 talks about the codes. I understand there already are codes. Are the codes something you can live with and work with? Do you have those ready, codes that are out there in terms of how your chiefs are elected, how your councillors are elected, what term of office they have?

Mr. Dave Scott: Each of our first nations has its own laws. Most of them are customary laws with regard to elections and relating to business at the first nation level. Again, that's something that I think would have to be addressed on that level.

· (1355)

Mr. Charles Hubbard: So from your point of view, in terms of working with the tribal council, you don't see that one group has a three-year term of office, another group has a four-year term of office for its council, and someone else has a two-year term; that there are codes and there are methods of looking after their finances? Is that all out there already?

I see the chief is going to take this.

Chief Morris Monias: Just to be clear, each band is unique. The people, the band members, decide which laws work for them. The chief and council do not unilaterally make decisions on their own. The people decide on the laws, on the codes.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: But with this, Chief, are there written understandings of how this works?

Chief Morris Monias: Yes.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: There are, on the terms of office?

Chief Morris Monias: Yes.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: So you already have part of Bill C-7.

Chief Morris Monias: Take, for instance, Heart Lake. Heart Lake has a three-year term, and it's customary law. I believe some of the bands here are probably under customary law. Some of them are still under the Indian Act. But as for Heart Lake, the people of Heart Lake decide on the laws. They decide what style of government and how they want their government to work for them.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: So that's within the spirit of Bill C-7. In my own province, I think it's a two-year term of office for most chiefs, and there's a continuous electoral process. It never seems to end. They blame it on the Indian Act.

That is the kind of thing we're trying to resolve, whether it be three years, four years, or whatever it might be. It's certainly good to hear. A three-year process certainly does give more continuity. You have a program; you have the time to put it in place over a three-year period.

I've probably taken all my time. Thanks, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: On that again, I guess you can only speak for your particular bands there.

I understand, from what Mr. Hubbard said, that these things, in terms of leadership selection in the customary sense, are written down, that every member understands that plainly in terms of how we arrive at chiefs in council, and so on, that there's never any confusion about it. Would that be true of every one of your bands? You never have confusion? Are people universally in agreement with whatever that customary band does, or do you have people saying they think we should change this? That's different from elsewhere in the country, where obviously you get people who are sometimes upset and want to change things, and so on. Do you have none of that?

Chief Morris Monias: There is an appeal process they may go through. If someone doesn't like something, he can always appeal it. If he has a number of people behind him--if it's say a 100% majority--that law is going to be changed, but if it's just one person who doesn't like something, he can't do anything about it.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: He or she can go to someone and say these are the issues. Does it have to be 100%? That's a pretty high standard.

Chief Morris Monias: I think it's 51%.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Right, but the more consensus, the better, I suppose.

I know that's true elsewhere in the country. I just don't know how it is, in every circumstance or situation. But would you say, in view of having met in financial and electoral processes, and so on, you have all these, but you just feel that to insert that into Bill C-7, even though you have it all covered off by way of that, is really conceding too much? It's conceding that the federal government is calling the shots here. Is that where the concern lies, then--they're directing or dictating too much?

Mr. Dave Scott: If you look through the sections of the act, I believe they're setting the criteria under which they expect the first nation to operate, which is not how the first nations do operate.

There are also things such as the population of our bands, even within our tribal council. Some bands have an on-reserve population of over 2,000, and others have 100. They operate differently, and we cover a large territory. So the northern bands and the TCA territory have different economic opportunities and live in a different environment from the southern bands within the tribal council area.

¸ (1400)

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Do you have things covered off in your band, in your codes, then, things like matrimonial real property on dissolution of marriage or breakdown of a relationship, a man and woman divorcing or separating, splitting, in terms of who gets what, how you divvy up, that kind of thing? Do you have that covered off?

Maybe Helen wants to respond, in terms of matrimonial real property. Do you have those things written up too?

Ms. Helen Gladue (Vice-Chairperson and Advisor, Advisory Council of Treaty 6 Women): I think when you look at the issue, Mr. Chairman, that alone is not the issue. The issue here is governance. That is a separate issue, in my understanding.

When we have our meeting, we'll ask our ladies what they know about it, because in each tribe we have our different beliefs.

It would be very difficult for me to accept a man leaving 160 acres to a white woman. That has to be discussed at the grassroots level. That's my belief.

So that is a totally different issue you have come up with.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Let's say it was a first nations woman, Helen. And I don't know the background, so that's why I'm asking. Let's say it's not a white woman involved here, but a--

Ms. Helen Gladue: Okay, let's put it this way. In Beaver Lake we have 13,600 acres that are commonly owned by the membership. The total membership in Beaver Lake is 821. Everything is different from band to band. Some of them have land--160 acres--but not all of us.

I mentioned that treaties have been violated--they have not been lived up to. This morning I stated that. Under the treaties we were promised 120 acres per family. Now, can you imagine in Beaver Lake, 821 band members, a lot of them with this Bill C-31? We don't even know these people who have been entered into the band.

The chief and council were to look after that. Indian Affairs tells us that it's our responsibility, but there is a real need for the committee to recognize that not enough money is given to our leadership to accommodate the restoration bill that took place in 1985.

You can almost smell the bill, all over. When you go someplace, Bill C-31 and membership are the biggest issues. You know, before 1985 there were 42,000 treaty Indians in the province of Alberta--Treaty 6, 7, and 8. Today, when the Department of Indian Affairs shows us the membership statistics, it's 89,375. So from 1985 we have had a big increase in the statistics, and that scares me, because it is not our chief and council.... In northeastern Alberta, where my chiefs and I are, none of us have membership codes.

The department decides who is an Indian and who is not. We say it should be our responsibility to define who is an Indian and who is not. And that's how this whole Bill C-31 has made our family split. We hate one another; we despise. We say “You get oil money. I don't get oil money over here. You get more education funds; I get nothing.”

You can just visualize in your mind the kinds of chaotic situations we have been put in since Bill C-31.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: How would you then define your membership? I mean, if you have the right to define your own membership, how would you go about doing that?

Ms. Helen Gladue: That's been the position since before 1985. We allowed Bill C-31 to be reinstated, but it was on four conditions. And the Government of Canada has not lived up to those four conditions.

When you look at the Corbiere case, the Supreme Court ruled that now you have to allow off-reserve Indians to vote. That was only a Supreme Court ruling, but the department said you have to allow off-reserve Indians to vote.

So we're discussing Bill C-7, and it's just out of whack as far as I'm concerned--as an elder who has been involved for many, many years. I demand that for myself, individually, we're going to look at individual rights. My rights are at stake, because my treaties come first, before our legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

¸ (1405)

Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, Lib.): I have maybe just a question of clarification. In referring to the tribal chiefs, do you identify which tribes and nations are at this level?

The reason I bring this up is because we also have tribal councils in my area in northern Saskatchewan, but these tribal councils evolved from the former district offices of Indian Affairs, which were vacated. Indian Affairs used to create a district office for Meadow Lake and a district office for Prince Albert. When Indian Affairs pulled back, tribal councils were born, called the Meadow Lake Tribal Council and the Prince Albert Grand Council. Under this act, the tribal councils aren't here, because the band chiefs uphold the tribal councils.

Now, if you're talking about governance, should it be a complete package? This has been my question all along. Should we be looking at the entire nations and tribes and how you govern as tribes and nations as well? Should it only be a view of a tribal or a band council? A first nation here is being defined as band council, as created by the Indian Act. Now we have these tribal councils. Should governance be going into the tribal realm or perspective?

Chief Morris Monias: Earlier on, I believe the previous speakers from the south spoke of each tribe being unique. We have different beliefs and customs, say between the Cree, the Dene people, and the Blackfoot people. The same applies to some of the tribal councils, where you have the Chippewa people, the Cree people, and the Stoney people.

I think this is what the Canadian government fails to recognize.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Mr. Chair, I just have a brief point.

I'm really taken with Helen's point on Bill C-31. If my recollection is correct, this matter of a native woman wanting to return with her children to her reserve in New Brunswick went beyond Canada to the United Nations.

Helen, I know it has created a tremendous problem in terms of numbers. But again, we're dealing with this particular bill from two similar perspectives, the Corbiere decision in terms of who can vote in reserve elections, and the so-called Canadian Human Rights Act, which has not been available to some people for a period of time.

I wonder if you'd like to make a little statement in terms of Corbiere and the human rights legislation, which could be a factor going back to Bill C-31. It seems to be your position that Bill C-31 has caused some pretty serious problems in terms of numbers and responsibilities. In fact, there could still be people out there who are over and above the doubling in numbers we've seen in Alberta over the last 17 or so years.

So maybe you could just a comment on these three things.

Ms. Helen Gladue: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm really glad you asked me to make a few comments, because now I can explain some things to you.

When the Corbiere decision on the elections law came down, that they were not allowed to vote, they used the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Yet section 25 of the Canadian Constitution states that treaty and aboriginal rights will not be abrogated. It has a notwithstanding clause that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is applicable to the first nations. That is the basis of our argument as well. The Corbiere case was decided by the Supreme Court in May 1999. Corbiere himself is from the Batchewana Band. I know a little bit of history behind the Batchewana Band and how it was created.

Your government and you parliamentarians sitting around here with us have to understand that the increase in population has not been addressed. We women who are aging keep hammering away at the government, saying that we want a review of Bill C-31. The government did not give the bands money. Why do you think I'm sitting here with my chief supporting the position they've taken? That's still my position. It's because nobody listens to us.

I happen to be an NRT member of the veterans issue. I have lobbied since 1979 for our veterans to get a deal. Finally, your government gave an amount, but not the one our committee came out with of $425,000 per veteran. One day out of the blue a big announcement was made that our veterans are going to get up to $20,000. When has the government ever listened to the kinds of requests we've made?

So I sit here bullheaded, and I'll be tough right through. I'll see that those treaty rights are protected. As I said this morning, I am a direct descendant of a signatory of Treaty 6.

Thank you for asking me to say a few words on it.

¸ (1410)

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to get back to your previous comments. I do agree. I think that it obviously hasn't kept pace here. When it gets into a mixed marriage situation, how does one decide down through the generations thereafter what amount of first nations blood in that person's veins by your membership standards constitutes a requirement of a first nations person? Do you have a response to that? It's a big issue, and I agree that it's an important one.

Ms. Helen Gladue: It's a very important one.

I think in Beaver Lake we are very fortunate. We don't have any white women who became treaty Indian after marriage. I think it's also safe for me to say Beaver Lake is full of full-blooded Cree Indians and some Métis women who have married in. We are like a family on that reserve. But I sympathize with other bands that have increased their population, because that is where the shortfall is. That is where these people are saying our chiefs are crooks and everything else that goes along with the allegation of being a no-damn-good leader.

Well, I'll tell you. That is the government's bill; it wasn't our bill. I lobbied on Parliament Hill for four and a half years to try to tell the people that it was going to give us problems, but do you know what? I didn't know I was going to live through to see the implications in front of me, such as this Bill C-7.

I think this time, Mr. Chair, I would like to see...I know I'm here to support my chief and the position we've taken, but as an elder, my advice is that we've already stated our position.

Thank you.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Helen, do you have more of an issue with the fact of the underfunding on a per capita or per person basis? Would you say we'll accept them all into membership as long as there's funding for them? Is that your point?

Ms. Helen Gladue: We have no choice, because under membership regulations of the Department of Indian Affairs, if we don't have membership codes, they're the ones to decide who's an Indian and who is not at the present time.

Indian Affairs have that obligation to allow these people to enter, and as I said this morning, there are a lot of them who want to. That's the problem we're faced with here, and that we'll face until I die, because membership and Indians are a key issue in every problem we have faced.

But, number one, I'm saying we are treaty first nations. We are born and we have the unique rights. We have the relationship with the Crown and so on. When you read the documents from the Advisory Council of Treaty 6 Women that we submitted, you will all be educated, I'm sure.

¸ (1415)

The Chair: Do you have closing remarks to share with us?

Chief Morris Monias: I just have one comment.

I heard the use of the words “aboriginal people” earlier. We're a first nation people. The word “aboriginal” includes Métis and Inuit. We are first nation people. “Aboriginal” is a melting-pot word. So when you speak to us, I would prefer that you use first nation.

With that, thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We now invite, from the Yellowhead Tribal Council, legal counsel Dennis Callihoo and Mr. Howard Mustus.

You may start any time you wish.

Mr. Howard Mustus (Executive Officer, Yellowhead Tribal Council): [Witness speaks in his native language]

Briefly, Mr. Chairman, I was greeting you in my language, the Nakoda language, thanking you for the opportunity to address the concerns that lie ahead of us. I hope cooler heads will prevail and that what you've heard today will be of some benefit to us.

I want, first of all, to share a bit of history with you. I want to welcome you to the far south end of the Treaty 6 territory. I think it's important. Treaty 6 territory is from the Red Deer River west to the mountains, north to the Athabasca River, into Saskatchewan, and into part of Manitoba. That's Treaty 6 territory and that's where we're coming from in most of the presentations. From a treaty perspective I think it's important to know that.

I will try to refresh your memory about your responsibilities. I was pleased to hear you say that you have a commitment to the treaties. If it weren't for the treaties...and it wasn't volunteered, Mr. Chairman; you needed the treaty entrance. So it was forceful on your part--on the immigrants' part--that they had the treaties entered into to allow for peace, order, and good government amongst ourselves to be able to allow for the sharing of the land, for the newcomers to come in, and for our leadership authority to be able to maintain and commit to the treaties.

The highest method of commitment is the peace pipe. That's why you hear of a treaty being a peace treaty. Anything above that is the Creator. So when we commit ourselves to that process of entering into a commitment by using the pipe, there is no reneging on that commitment, because the preachings under natural law of our people through our elders is that the Creator will discipline you if you renege on those commitments.

I think history reveals there is an authority here that this table, along with the government it represents, has to start taking very seriously the other side of that authority, which is the partners who entered into the treaty that allowed for the advancement and the formation of the government--foreign institutions governing the country. I think the Royal Proclamation of 1763 says very clearly that there is an authority that we must respect, recognize, and consult from.

When the treaties were entered into, when there were these conflicts, as Chief Monias mentioned too, the first nations people had to be somehow provided with a comfort. So you came to us when this need occurred. As a result of that, after lengthy deliberations and under a method of governance, our people entered into the treaty--a first nations method of government. And that's what we're talking about today.

This table somehow has to use its influence to recognize that authority and force the issue of having to come back and establish a treaty-based relationship. Without a treaty-based relationship, you're never going to get the support from our side of this partnership. Any other approach is going to be cosmetic, in our opinion. The importance of having to recognize and start committing to a proper process from a treaty perspective is long overdue.

¸ (1420)

With that, Mr. Chairman, as I said, I want to just briefly introduce myself. My name is Howard Mustus. I'm with the Yellowhead Tribal Council, a past politician myself, converted into an administrator. I'm proud to be very supportive in working with the five chiefs of the Yellowhead Tribal Council. Again, it's an authority under the elected chiefs, who derive their authority from the membership.

In conclusion, I think we took a bit out of your script. Naturally you're not going to please everybody, and I think too much emphasis has been placed on some circumstances surrounding our communities by some people who are dissidents in what has happened. The majority of the people are comfortable with having to select leadership--chief and councils--in our communities. As was mentioned, we have processes of appeal under natural law. If you're not comfortable with that leadership, you kick them out the next time around.

You made mention of matrimonial law. We have again the need to recognize the treaty. The treaty authority will tell you what it is under natural law that governs first nations people, and I think we need to go there. You have all the attributes to be able to do that in section 35 of the Constitution.

The second part of the apprehension that's created with this process is that it's encouraging individual rights as opposed to collective rights under treaties. We talked about codes in elections, for example. Collectively under natural law we have always had codes. The interpretation of natural law is done deliberately by our people. We don't keep it in written text. That's part of the learning. If you want to learn about natural law, you take it and you practise and you keep in your head. You don't derive it from literature or from theory. That's part of training under natural law of our elders.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I'll now turn the microphone over to our in-house legal counsel, Mr. Dennis Callihoo, to give a philosophical view from a theoretical, non-aboriginal, foreign institution perspective. I thank you for that.

Mr. Dennis Callihoo (Legal Counsel, Yellowhead Tribal Council): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you, Howard, for those opening comments.

I'd like to begin with the vision of governance of first nations. The vision of first nations governance by the first nations people of the Yellowhead Tribal Council of Treaty 6 and of their relationship with the federal Crown and government is one that has remained steadfast and not changed since the signing of Treaty 6 in 1876. This vision is founded upon principles of partnership, sharing, and mutual consent.

The historic vision of Canada for first nations governance has been wardship, colonialism, and neglect of treaty relationships and the treaty rights of first nations, including the right of self-governance. In proceeding with Bill C-7, Canada again is neglecting history, and we're witnessing the mistakes of history being repeated. This has been clearly documented in the RCAP report, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples.

The tools of governance proclaimed by the federal government in Bill C-7 do not advance the collective constitutional rights of first nations with respect to self-government or first nations aspirations to first nations governance, but advance individual rights, the charter, the Canadian Human Rights Act, and western corporate values of corporate management. First nations need the tools to negotiate self-governance and the tools of treaty recognition and implementation. Any principles of accountability purporting to be under first nations governance must be accountable for first nations beliefs, values, culture, aspirations, and collective treaty rights, and not accountable to individual rights and western corporate values.

First nations have consistently asserted that any changes to the current regime and Indian Act must be founded upon treaty recognition and implementation. This is consistent with the recommendations of RCAP. Unfortunately, Bill C-7 is based upon principles of, and objectives of, reducing lawful treaty obligations and managing legal claims and liability.

The constitutional authority to recognize and implement treaty obligations for the Indian Act is found in section 91.24 of the BNA Act. This was constitutionally necessary for the federal Crown to enter into treaties with first nations in order to clear the land for the settlement and industry for the people of the federal treaty partner. Once treaties were signed, they were forgotten, undermined, dismissed, and devalued by the federal government as being insignificant except as a historical footnote in Canadian history.

The land and resources were not shared with first nations equitably, nor was the full benefit of the law extended to first nations. Indeed, Lady Justice, holding her scales, was able to see through her blinds to see the colour red and tipped her scales in favour of the newcomers. This has been the pattern for legal and constitutional traditions to the present with no end in sight.

The RCAP report, in chapter 8 of volume 1, succinctly outlines the relationship of first nations under the Indian Act. The relationship clearly does not reflect principles of partnership, sharing, and mutual respect. The Indian Act, its predecessor, and proposed descendant Bill C-7 are the centrepiece of federal policy and legislation with respect to first nations people. The dysfunctional cycle of this relationship, unfortunately, is repeating itself.

RCAP found and examined four false assumptions based on ingrained views of ignorance and prejudice that lay behind the policies of the Indian Act. The false assumptions are as follows:

One, first nations people are inherently inferior and incapable of governing themselves.

Two, treaties were a form of bureaucratic memorandums of understanding, and all areas of first nations policy or action ran roughshod over treaty obligations.

Three, wardship was and is appropriate for first nations people, so that actions deemed to be for their benefit could be taken without their consent or their involvement in design or implementation.

Four, concepts of development, whether for the individual or community, could be defined by non-first nations values alone. This assumption held whether progress was seen as first nations people being civilized and assimilated or, in later times, as resource and environmental exploitation.

All these false assumptions laid the foundation of Bill C-7 as such, which proposes to amend the Indian Act, a colonial vestige of historic constitutional inequality, the shining star of Canadian human rights abuse. However, to date, the Indian Act remains the only link between first nations and Canada in the absence of treaty implementation and recognition.

¸ (1425)

Constitutional issues: Presently the federal government reads section 91.24 over and to the detriment of section 35, section 37.1, Treaty 6 and the Delgamuukw case, sections 25 and 15, and the constitutional principles annunciated in the Quebec secession case and the Campbell case, which recognized the common law right of aboriginal self-government.

The Constitution must be read together as a whole and other constitutional provisions that affect first nations should not be discounted. We fully agree with the minister, as he stated in his submission before this committee, that section 35 and section 91.24 of the Constitution need to be reconciled. However, by the same token, sections 15 and 25, Treaty 6, and the constitutional principles annunciated in the Quebec secession case and Campbell case must also be reconciled and given consideration.

The elders of Treaty 6 tell us that we never gave up our right to govern ourselves, that the treaty partners agreed to govern themselves according to their own ways. The legal significance given to oral evidence under the Delgamuukw case, combined with the oral history of our elders, make a strong case that first nations understandings of Treaty 6 may be enforced under section 35.

Currently the first nations of Treaty 6 have engaged the federal government through its representatives to discuss Treaty 6 in exploratory discussions through the Treaty 6 bilateral table to better understand Treaty 6, with a view to eventually entering into a process to implement the treaty. This process would uphold the directions of the Supreme Court that the parties should negotiate treaty issues in good faith and discuss such issues rather than resorting to the court to decide important issues. Despite efforts of first nations to peacefully reconcile and implement treaty rights, the government has consistently delayed and held off serious discussions and negotiations in good faith by stating they don't have a mandate to deal with treaties.

The Quebec secession case discussed fundamental constitutional principles in the context of Quebec's separation. The major principles that the Supreme Court cited were fundamental but unwritten constitutional principles of democracy and federalism, and also the equally fundamental principles of constitutionalism, the rule of law, and the protection of minorities. It is difficult to see how a unilateral process imposed by the federal government could be seen as promoting fundamental values such as democracy, federalism, and the protection of minorities when they're running roughshod over the fundamental treaty principles of partnership, sharing, and mutual consent. Indeed, the entire process of Bill C-7 has violated all the fundamental constitutional principles set out in the Quebec secession case vis-à-vis first nations.

A constitutional provision gave rise to Bill C-7, and that was the Corbiere case, which dealt with the section 15 or equality rights. While the Corbiere case looked at a specific provision of the Indian Act, no case has yet impugned the Indian Act in its entirety, or specifically section 91.24, as violating section 15. No other group under the Constitution has governing legislation controlling their lives from cradle to grave. There's no Scottish Canadian Act, or Irish Canadian Act, only the Indian Act.

One must ask why Indians were singled out for special treatment. It could be argued that section 91.24 prima facie violates section 15 and legislation made thereunder should be struck down. However, if it is used to recognize and implement treaties such as the Nisga'a Treaty or for legislation agreed to by first nations, then it should be saved under section 1 as upholding principles found in a free and democratic society. If legislation under section 91.24 is legislated over the protest of first nations and without their consent, it should be seen as a violation of the Constitution and be held null and void.

I'll go to a last few areas and I'll try to go as quickly as I can.

To allow the current use of section 91.24, in our view, is undemocratic, constitutes inequality, is a human rights violation, and allows Canada to ignore and forever delay treaty recognition and implementation. The only protection in light of this constitutional bullying, and to ensure principles of a free and democratic society, is to require the consent of first nations in the passing of any legislation under section 91.24. Any change requires mutually accepted processes and negotiated parameters, sufficient resources provided to first nations to meaningfully participate, and any legislative changes made under section 91.24 must have the consent of first nations. To allow Parliament to use section 91.24 with unchecked and unbridled authority is offensive to principles of constitutionalism and a free and democratic society.

¸ (1430)

I'll end with a summary.

Have we changed as a society in the year 2003 when the federal government can legislate over first nations by ignoring and running roughshod over treaty obligations and unilaterally legislating first nations governance for first nations without meaningful consultation from first nations or, at the same time, doing an end run around the Constitution? Does a federal unilateral action of drafting first nations governance legislation, as others in the self-governing paradigm, run diametrically opposed and pay lip service to the stated federal policy of recognizing the inherent right to self-government for first nations?

From the perspective of first nations, Bill C-7 would more accurately be described as a first nations legal liability, control, and management act, or the perpetual delay and denial of treaty rights to governance act, or simply an act to amend the Indian Act. Whatever Bill C-7 is from the federal government's perspective, it is not governance from a first nations perspective. First nations assert that in the year 2003 governance must respect both the Constitution and first nations, work with first nations cooperatively, and we must work together as partners in the Confederation of Canada.

First nations refuse to be treated as second-class citizens who are controlled and managed and are legislatively powerless before a government that believes they can force legislation upon first nations without their consent. This approach is an affront to basic human rights and dignity, the values of respect and understanding, the values that embrace justice, democracy, and freedom.

Government powers are not unbridled when they can act by ignoring the Constitution and constitutional principles. There are checks on parliamentary powers and parliamentary sovereignty when it engages in individual rights selectivism over the collective rights held by first nations under Treaty 6 and section 35. If the government legislates in a manner that offends the Constitution, relief is offered that will strike down those provisions. For those reasons offered above, Bill C-7 offends the Constitution and should be struck down under section 52.

First nations people are also Canadians and must be treated in a democratic manner, not dictated to by a government eager to enforce their will over the protests of first nations. This offends our basic notions of freedom and fundamental human rights and of constitutionally guaranteed treaty rights.

I'll end with this. A young Cree leader by the name of Harold Cardinal wrote in 1969:

We do not want the Indian Act retained because it is a piece of good legislation. It isn't. It is discriminatory from start to finish. But it is a lever in our hands and an embarrassment to government, as it should be. No just society and no society with even pretensions to being just can long tolerate such a piece of legislation, but we would rather continue to live in bondage under the inequitable Indian Act than surrender our sacred rights. Any time the government wants to honour its obligations to us we are more than ready to help devise new Indian legislation.

That offer is still open.

Our recommendations are as follows. First is to scrap Bill C-7 in its entirety and begin again with full first nations participation in the design and implementation of the governance legislation conditional upon first nations' full and informed consent. Second, we recommend that the Prime Minister and cabinet undertake to call a national meeting with first nation leaders to discuss first nation self-government. Third and last, we recommend that the Prime Minister and cabinet authorize a mandate for the federal government to deal with, recognize, and implement treaties through the treaty bilateral tables or for the process as recommended in RCAP.

With that I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your patience in our submissions.

¸ (1435)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Who will go first? Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I should preface my remarks by stating, as I have prior in the day already, that I do have serious concerns about Bill C-7 at different points. I think there are some serious flaws there.

Maybe I'll start, Howard, by asking you a general kind of question here. In terms of first nations laws, customs, and codes, are they flexible over time or are they fixed? Are they rigidly set in stone, having been established at a point in time past, or can there be a progression, if you will, as society becomes more complex in a bunch of different ways, actually? Help me. I'm asking this respectfully. Have there over a course of time been adjustments, with the people together deciding that doesn't work any more, we move on, we adjust it in this way? I'm assuming that's the case, but you need to confirm that for me.

Mr. Howard Mustus: Do you have 125 years?

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: No, not quite.

Mr. Howard Mustus: I'm glad you asked that question.

First of all, I want to put in a plug. What allows you people to function is based on two principles: one, whatever makes economic sense, and two, whatever makes political sense. These are two basic principles that allow you people to function.

From a first nations natural law perspective, the Supreme Being who decides is the Creator. The Creator decides what and how we should interpret, and there are indicators. You don't just draw those indicators from a textbook; you draw from commitment and experience to be able to define those indicators when that time comes. That's how natural law is derived by aboriginal people. We've never at any point proclaimed ourselves as the champions, the know-it-all society. The authority is the Creator. I think there's something for you people to learn from that.

Look at what you've done. As I said earlier, the main principle of how you people function is economic. Economic function has raped the Creator's work. Today you're talking about trying to reverse that and to minimize the pollution that's taking place. Now the big thing is the Kyoto Accord. Those are very serious principles under natural law, which were advised against. You do not abuse what Mother Nature has provided to you and created for you, because there is going to be the type of backlash that's now happening .

¸ (1440)

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I have to say this, too, because I hear people justifying certain things in terms of how they want to implement them--

Mr. Howard Mustus: Don't get the impression that we're hiding behind this. I get the feeling from some of you that we're trying to cover up something. The natural law is implanted in your mind. It's not written. It's done deliberately.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Is it a contradiction, then, to have some of that in writing? Is there something unwholesome and wrong about putting it in some form, realizing, as you say, that it derives from the Creator as a natural law?

Mr. Howard Mustus: With my generation it's a matter of asking why I should do that, because I know you're going to use it against me later on. You will take that and use that as a defence against us. We know a little bit about the inner workings of Parliament. I know that there's a very powerful group of ministers sitting there who are very aware of what has happened in the past and what cannot happen anymore.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: So you're saying because of that wariness, let's not put these codes in writing. Is that what you're saying?

Mr. Howard Mustus: The word “code” is your term. I use “natural law”. The terminology is yours.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: So you're wary, then, about putting some of the natural law into writing.

I'll give you an example. I talked to a lady just last week, a good friend of mine in her fifties who is a first nations band councillor. I think the day I was talking to her, she was going to find out that evening whether she was going to be re-elected to her band. She is presently working on her PhD and was telling me about some of her studies and background, and so on.

She related to me that her nomadic Cree people had what she called in that instance “codes” for a two-week hunt, for example--going way back. She said, that was a code that sustained us; we maybe didn't like each other, but it helped us to get along over the period of time for the hunt and it sustained us. But she then added, that two-week code is not functional; it doesn't help us. In some of the situations we face now it would not be sustainable. So as a first nation, we have to come together in terms of the new situations around us and develop law based on--I think this was the assumption--natural law. Instead of a two-week code for the hunt, we have to have a code that works and sustains us over a year or over a term. And even once there's a change of chief and council, it's a continuity beyond one regime of a chief and council. This is what she said to me.

How do your respond to this?

Mr. Howard Mustus: Let me respond this way. The day you're prepared to come and say, okay, I will recognize your treaties, then that's the day I'll come and say, okay, then I'm prepared to look at some codes. Until that happens, you're not going to get this, because codifications in first nation governments is a method being imposed upon them. As I said earlier, the treaties reinforce this natural law concept, and the ultimate authority of natural law is the Creator.

So when we have an agreement that we will talk and establish the eventual objective of implementing a treaty-based relationship, then we can start talking about processes under natural law around that. But prior to that, yes, I know where you're coming from. Whatever code you're even going to be even entertaining is automatically going to have to satisfy the charter, as Dennis said.

¸ (1445)

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I don't know what...This was an aboriginal or first nations woman, who is a band council member.

Mr. Howard Mustus: This is the second part of the apprehension. First is the reluctance, hesitation, or ignorance of having to commit to addressing or establishing a process of treaty-based relationships. The other part of it is the fact that, whatever establishment is there, it is in contravention of the rights under treaties and of being able to function under first nations natural law.

But as I said, Mr. Chairman, we have 125 years. I'll give you my address. We'll talk any time you want.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I'm not sure I got an answer to my question there, but I'm willing to discuss that later with you too.

She was of the view, and it was not in mitigation or anything of that sort, that they needed some codes based on natural law, whether written or not. I think her intent was for them to be written down for self-governing or governing her own people. That's all she was saying or insisting on to me. She knows it, has talked to elders, and has lived and breathed as a first nations person all these years.

So it wasn't something I had imposed on her as a “white person”. She was counselling and advising me, and I was sitting and listening respectfully and getting very valuable input on a number of issues.

Mr. Howard Mustus: I'll just read this, Mr. Chairman, one last time. As I said earlier, part of the requirement of having to understand natural law is that you don't formalize it by writing it. You need to keep it up here.

So I guess that's their perception. As one of the chiefs mentioned, you cannot expect all of us to function under one blanket-type process. We're different in our beliefs. The interpretations under natural law, which has been imposed upon us by the Creator, may differ a bit. It's always been from a collective perspective, with collective rights and collective authority having formed our government. This is how we function.

This process has to be reinforced by the treaties, which allowed the entrants into this partnership and led us to what we're doing today.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Howard Mustus: Mr. Chairman, thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Hubbard.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm somewhat taken aback. We have today more experience, more philosophy and history than we would probably have in a month in Parliament.

Howard, you referred to the Royal Proclamation of 1763, and of course with that, the place where we are today, Mr. Chair, was not necessarily a part of the British thinking in 1763. Prince Rupert's Land, of course, to the north and the west was out on another sort of arrangement that was made with traders who were involved here in this territory. Then, of course, with Confederation in 1867 down east in New Brunswick, a man by the name of Perley had done a lot of work in protecting, as he called it, the first nations or the natives of New Brunswick in terms of the encroachment that was being made on their land by the white settlers. New Brunswick did bring in legislation and methods that attempted to protect the Mi'kmaq and Maliseet people.

When you study history, Howard, you find that when Canada expanded and when the first couple of Parliaments back in 1867 to 1880 were dealing with some of these problems, it took them a long time to deal with them. And, Mr. Chair, they themselves called it an “Indian Parliament”, but really it was an act that they'd created. They brought in an act that, looking at it in the year 2003, looks fairly stupid in terms of how people would look at other people and attempt to create a nation.

Alcohol was a situation. White people visiting native reserves was a part of some of this early legislation. Voting was another part of it, and women weren't really considered as being very much a part of the total process. It was simply a male-dominated society.

Howard, you're referring to, I suppose, the philosophy of Rousseau and his book on Emile. You're talking about natural laws.

As British subjects, most of us talk about the idea of precedence and the laws that were established at one time and continue to work their way through the courts. Of course, that's why we're looking at the Corbiere decision and how it applies to other places.

Howard, there seems to be a lot of people in this country who say you can't keep the laws in your head. They look to complain when they see things don't work the way they think they should work and they say, where is that written?

I'm not sure you and Morris are going to be around in 125 years' time to be able to tell of your experiences and how this law that's in here should apply. Are you really saying to us today, don't write this up? Do you think the people everywhere are going to be satisfied in all the first nations communities that a few people will keep the laws in their heads? If they aren't satisfied with that, then how would they appeal? What would they do if the chief and council make certain decisions that they feel aren't in the best interests of their community? Would you simply wait for the next election and throw that group out and bring in another group with a different set of natural laws?

I don't mean to be provocative, but could you try to explain to us why there shouldn't be a governance act or why there shouldn't be some codes to work--

¸ (1450)

Mr. Howard Mustus: Before I do that, I want to get back to your earlier perception of Indian problems.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Okay. I`m using an 1870s--

Mr. Howard Mustus: The problem back then was ownership. Parliament at that time recognized that there was an authority of ownership that somehow the process wasn't recognizing. That is why the Indian problem arose, as the parliamentarians put it in those days. So right from that time, if what we're suggesting here today had happened, I think we would not be in the situation that we are in today.

But as far as methods are concerned, Charles, there are methods out there. Unfortunately, what brought this whole thing to the forefront...and the author of part of that, from that party, is over there, from the Alliance Party. I'm not sure if you're from that party as well.

But as I said earlier, we can't please everybody. Besides having a collective perspective to what we do, we also respect a method of democracy where the majority rules. We do have processes in place where you can appeal. Quite often, particularly in ours, reference is made to a standing group of elders--I used “standing” because it's where we're at today--where an appeal can be made. If that's not satisfactory, then the ultimate and final authority--and I'm talking about elections here--is that there has to be a tripartite independent body put together to hear the appeal, and that's it. There's no court action after that.

As far as membership is concerned, we have the same process in place. There's an application. There's a formality that we have in place. There's a group that reviews that, and a selection is made. Upon appeal, I guess some have chosen to go to Indian Affairs for that, but that's a prerogative they have. But under natural law, when people had the authority to determine membership, there was no such thing as an appeal.

¸ (1455)

The Chair: To verify one thing, we show our names but not the political parties. That's because we like to believe we work together as a committee, and it is working well. We have three members here from the Liberal Party, two from the Alliance, and I am from the Liberal Party.

Thank you very much for your presentation. I will invite you to make closing remarks if you wish.

I have a wish for you, Howard Mustus. My wish is that you live for another 125 years. But I have another wish for you, that the last face you see before you die will be mine. Okay? I usually end up looking after myself too, you see.

Mr. Howard Mustus: That's a tall order, Mr. Chairman. I'll have to reference natural law and see if I can accommodate.

The Chair: Don't think that because we're parliamentarians and we're affiliated with parties, we don't have a form of natural law. I've voted against my party 10 times, and I know two bills are coming that I will be voting against. I must be guided naturally too.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Howard Mustus: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity, and as I said, we need to go beyond what we're focusing on presently.

I realize that you do have your restrictions, but somehow, as members of the parties you represent, perhaps you can provide some influence to those parties to allow for some pressure in Parliament to enable us to address the issue of outstanding treaty business that needs to be addressed yet.

On that note, thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I'd like to know if Mike McGee, Chief Roderick Alexis, and Eileen Sasakamoose are in the room.

We have Chief Roderick Alexis with us from the Alexis First Nation. We have 30 minutes together.

Chief Roderick Alexis (Alexis First Nation): Good afternoon, elders, chiefs, and members of the standing committee.

[Witness speaks in his native language]

I just wanted to say in my language that when my great-grandfather signed the adhesion to Treaty 6, some promises were made, and today I think those promises are in question.

My name is Rod Alexis, chief of Alexis First Nation. As elected chief of the Alexis First Nation, I am speaking not as an individual but as a representative of the treaty people of our first nation. I apologize for any comments that may have led you to believe that I'm speaking only for myself.

At the conclusion of my last term of office as chief in June 1998, I put forward a very bold statement to our community. Essentially, I asserted that our community's best opportunity for economic survival rests upon the development of self-reliance and unity amongst members. By working together we will survive. I still hold that vision, and I'm working toward implementing the tools necessary to achieve that vision during my current term of office in honour of our forefathers and the treaty signed with the newcomers of this land.

I started my presentation by paying tribute to the visions of our forefathers and to the hope they shared for the future generations, by their suffering and struggle to make a better future a reality. I wish to say that I also strive to follow in the footsteps of our strong and trusted leaders of the past, starting with Aran Inazhi, who first led our people to this sacred area on the shores of Lac Ste. Ann following a vision given to him by the Creator. Then there was my great-grandfather, Chief Francis Alexis, the son of Aran Inazhi, and Chief Joe Alexis, Aran Inazhi's grandson and my late grandfather, the last of the hereditary chiefs of Alexis First Nation.

Since 1957 we have been under the Indian Act election system and subject to the gradual erosion of the traditional values and beliefs of the Nakoda Sioux.

I wish to acknowledge my late parents, Albert and Veronica Alexis, who raised me in a traditional way as a leader, knowing that I was the eldest grandson of the last hereditary chief. They believed that the Creator would protect our people if we honoured the values, beliefs, and traditions passed down to us by our forefathers. We also claim that protection over our communities and nations.

Now I'll address the points I made in my letter to the standing committee. The first is clarification of the inherent right to self-government and the treaty right for peace, order, and good government.

The unwritten laws of the Nakoda Sioux were based on caring for and looking after each other. The moral values and customs of the way of life were intertwined with our equal responsibility for caring for the land, which gave us life. We are stewards of the land and the resources to ensure a future for the Nakoda Sioux. We took care to manage our natural resources, because that is how we maintain our survival. By managing our resources we're able to survive on the land for generations.

¹ (1500)

Because of what is happening to our natural environment today, everything is at risk. Natural resources are being quickly depleted and over-harvested in the interest of economic and resource development. Air and water quality are rapidly deteriorating, to the point where we presently drink bottled water more often than tap water. We will be bottling clear air in the future as well. The new modes of production have little, if any, regard for the future, particularly for those of us who still rely heavily on sustenance from the land.

For us, the issues are much more central to the preservation and perpetuation of our nation, our traditions, our cultures, our language, and our way of life. To divert the focus away from the pressing issues of concerns of first nations is a grave injustice, particularly when our very survival depends on it. What we should be focused on is how are the natural resources of this land to be allocated fairly to ensure that our nations can become active participants in the modern economy.

In the fur trade era, no one questioned our rights to harvest the skins of the animals and participate in the monetary economy of that day. Why is it so difficult for the modern institutions of government to acknowledge our rightful place at the table and to allow for participation in the ways that would generate more vital ways of sustaining our communities? Why are we expected to beg for dwindling government dollars to sustain our nations and then to be doubly burdened with accountability, not only for those dollars but also for more bureaucratic red tape superimposed on the existing onerous requirements of the accounting of government funding?

When we scrutinize the first nations governance bill against the light of our treaty, Treaty No. 6 is clear that we must emphatically reject what the government is proposing. While it may be true that the institutions of governments are necessary to ensure that the promise of Treaty 6 are kept, the question is, on whose terms are those institutions to be conceived? Unfortunately, given the appalling track record of the government in relationship to the treaty implementation, it has become increasingly difficult for first nations to trust the initiatives of the government.

Treaty 6 first nations have also insisted on the bilateral process where the first nations have the status of partners with the federal government. If we are true partners, how can this legislative initiative be pushed ahead when there exists such a wide divergence of opinion on the issue of responsible government? For the federal government, their definition is circumscribed by the principles of representative democracy. Unfortunately, in a country dominated by other than first nations people, how can first nations place their confidence in the principles of “one person one vote” ever giving them a fair shake?

There has been a general distrust of Indian Act systems, as it has been seen as eroding our traditional forms of government. Now the first nations are being asked to endorse the entrenchment of the Indian Act style of government without ever having adequately addressed the dismantling of our own forms of government. As promised in the treaty, is this proposed legislation a means of assuring peace, order, and good government?

In my early term of office, upon urging the community members, we, the chief and council, set out to implement many of the documents required in the proposed legislation. Specifically, we passed customary election regulations that appended conflict of interest rules, council responsibilities, and the terms of a senate of elders. We also passed financial and personnel management regulations. Unfortunately, with a shift in the leadership, implementation of policies and regulations passed by the ongoing chief and council became an issue. Clearly, there are areas of governing our communities that need careful scrutiny, but it is also important that any remedial strategy be in step with the aspirations and the visions of our community.

¹ (1505)

This is not necessarily so when one looks at Bill C-7, Bill C-19, Bill C-6. For example, during my term of office, 1996 to 1998, the Alexis First Nation spent a considerable amount of time and money to retain legal advice from some of the top law firms in the area to draft taxation bylaws. As it turned out, some four taxation bylaws were drafted, at great expense to the band, yet the band members never endorsed any of the bylaws. Clearly, the underlying message for us is that administrative and government changes at the local level have to keep pace with the general will of the community.

Establishing open communications with the first nations leadership: The minister has indicated on several occasions that the first nations governance initiative has involved the most comprehensive consultation on any piece of legislation today. As I understand, he is relying, for the most part of it, on the 1-800 telephone communications and the feedback received by his department on the Internet site.

Unfortunately, both of these modes of communication do not ensure it is first nations people who are expressing their views. Moreover, it is very hard to believe that traditional grassroots people would even participate in these forms of communications, much less that they did. In fact, the stark reality of most reserves is that few first nations are actually online as of yet.

For example, the Alexis First Nations does not have an Internet connection in the band office. With the exception of the Alexis school, Alexis health centre is the only other band building with Internet access. The more remote the communities and the more traditional styles, the less likely that the people have access to or the desire of modern technology.

For the record, this consultation initiative pales in comparison to the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples and the Penner inquiry, which both involved face-to-face meetings with first nations. Those commissions of inquiry within our communities, or within close proximity of our communities, facilitated first nation participation.

What the first nations leadership is seeking is more openness to the views and the visions of the first nations themselves. Perhaps what the minister sought to accomplish is being achieved indirectly, that is, engaging first nations in discussions towards the implementation of the inherent right to aboriginal self-government. We want to make it clear that first nations need to be true partners in this process.

Putting the cart before the horse: the need for building capacity at a local level, management of first nations issues by first nations personnel. As I mentioned earlier, there are a number of concerns at the local level that we lack the capacity to build at local level, despite having spent a few years under third-party financial management at the local level. Not only do we feel no better for it, we paid out no less than $7,000 to $10,000 per month in co-management fees over the better part of three and a half years. For that matter, at times the co-managers spent as little as two to three days per month on the reserve. The rest of the management of the band's finances was done primarily off the reserve in the co-management offices. What learning was to have taken place from this process?

Despite feeling disillusioned about the experience, we are almost over the hurdle. For the past six months, we have managed our own finances under close scrutiny by ourselves and the department. But under the first nations governance bill, first nations would come under more scrutiny than non-indigenous institutions of government, creating a discriminatory regime.

The reporting requirements may even go as far as to infringe on the privacy of individuals. Clearly, the spending of chief and council will be open to public scrutiny. It clearly establishes a double standard for first nations business entities that are affiliated with the bands, in that the disclosure requirements are greater than those of the non-indigenous business sector. What is needed is a proactive approach to building capacity with the first nations, by and for first nations.

¹ (1510)

Redefining the role of the Indian agent in financial management wizardry: Third-party management and scenarios are creating the perception at the local level that we are unable to manage our own affairs. Even as elected chiefs and leaders, we are sending out a message that we are incapable of fiscal, let alone government, leadership.

What that means: In some ways there are close parallels to the disenfranchised in prison. The message is clear: we cannot be trusted to take care of our own affairs. The irony of it all is that INAC mandates the payment of huge amounts of money to those third-party managers, who do little, if anything, to set the first nations back on their feet. For this reason, it serves as a stark reminder of the not-so-long-ago practice of Indian agents managing our affairs. Basically that's the message we are getting at the local levels. They are not calling them Indian agents anymore. There appears to be a new language: “third-party managers” or “third order of government”.

Increased first nations requirements: Establishing codes, laws, and registries necessitates adequate resources to comply. First nations will all require Internet access.

As I mentioned above, the ideas about the responsible government structures contained in the legislation are logical steps to take in involving government functions at the local level. They are natural progressions toward achieving greater autonomy for communities. However, they are a part of a process that requires significant buy-in from all stakeholders. In particular, they require resources. If any significant growth toward acquiring greater local autonomy is to occur, adequate resources are necessary. Many of the modern technologies, including Internet access, will become necessary steps to be taken. To what extent first nations communities are ready for this is dependent on a wide variety of factors that cannot be overlooked.

In closing, I would like to share some of the insights I received in preparing my submission. The Alexis First Nation signed the adhesion to Treaty 6 in 1877. We were under the watchful eye of the RCMP. Now, with most of us under the threat of supervision of the RMP, or remedial management plan, we are being asked to endorse Bill C-7 to legislate governance and accountability rules. Now, 100-plus years late, we may no longer be seen as a threat to peace, but we are still not an empowered first nation to act in our own best interests.

These are my points. First, the Alexis First Nation urges the standing committee to recommend that the proposed legislation be dismissed as premature, if not ill-conceived. Second, the Alexis First Nation seeks the support of the standing committee in advance on the Treaty 6 first nations' position, as outlined by my colleague Chief Lorne Morin. We also seek the standing committee's support of Alexis First Nation and other Treaty 6 first nations in a meeting with the Prime Minister to talk about the treaties, re-establishing a forum for the implementation of treaties on a nation-to-nation basis. Finally, we seek the standing committee's support to advance the view that the governance must include access to resource sharing in all traditional territories as a viable way to sustain first nations communities into the next century.

¹ (1515)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Thank you for being with us, Roderick and Eileen.

My question again.... I think one way or another it gets on the record, time and again, throughout the course of this day, so if the question seems somewhat repetitious, it's to the end of actually hearing and getting it on the record enough times here, too.

You made a comment there, Chief, that to implement Bill C-7 would require dismantling your own forms of governance. I took it from some of your other comments that you had a fairly well-developed set of divine law, as it was said by a previous individual here. In terms of leadership selection, financial management accountability, and administration of government, you have natural law, and I gather from what you said that you have it in written form. Could you not ratify or confirm that as part of Bill C-7?

Am I making myself clear? I think I heard you say that you've developed codes and laws in some of these different areas and you would have to dismantle your own form of government in order to implement Bill C-7. If you have those things already in place in terms of leadership selection, financial management and accountability, and administration of government--and you might use some different terms there--could you not just confirm or ratify that so that then you've already met the “requirements” of Bill C-7?

Chief Roderick Alexis: Bill C-7, as I see it, is basically legislation to put forward the administrative concerns of the federal government. When we do our own structure, with some of the unwritten laws, it is a different process that we look at. Basically we consider what the needs of the community are and how we can incorporate those types of things. We're not given that same opportunity this way. Basically it is setting out the premise of saying, okay, you have to.... Excuse me, I think my community is calling me on my cell phone.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I find in your bill, which I read through, that the type of management you are talking about will not address the needs of our community.

If you're a leader in the community, you live there on a daily basis. When the unemployment rate is about 80% to 90%, when you live in a province such as Alberta where the provincial government brags that it can't find enough men to employ, when that type of resource sharing is not happening in our country and we're trying to manage on what little we have and can't even provide adequate services such as education.... We have education. We have a population of about 1,200 people. Basically what the federal government gave us is about 48 seats, so how do we educate our people? We have housing shortages. Economic opportunity is not there. So there is more to this than just the process that you're trying to put across.

As a governing body, one of the things I think you should do as you sit as legislators is look at how the first nations can be involved in the development of the natural resources. Give us a fair shake at what's ours so these types of concerns can be addressed. That's not happening, and that's not where you're leading to. You're simply trying to keep us as a small community, as it is, and we're having a problem.

¹ (1520)

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I need to clarify again, I think. It's already been said. This is not my bill and I often want to distance myself from it. I never drafted this thing and never--

Chief Roderick Alexis: If it's not your bill, I want your support to say this bill isn't adequate at the present time.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Do I understand you to say that you have, in your own written or unwritten manner, more than adequately covered off many of these issues anyhow? You have pre-empted it, in effect. Would it be accurate to say that?

Ms. Eileen Sasakamoose (Legal Counsel, Alexis First Nation): I think it's important to note that there were codes. There was a customary election code that was drafted and passed by the membership of the Alexis First Nation to govern the election process at the local level. It appends accountability provisions, including terms of reference for a summit, as well as conflict of interest rules for the chief and council.

What has been a little bit more difficult to implement are the regulations that were drafted for financial and personnel management. I guess there's always a question about to what degree you have buy-in from your own community members, even when you have initiated a process within your community, and how you can say that these are actually going to be binding on people.

I think the difficulty is that if this legislation were put in place and people were legislatively required to mandate rules, there is really the potential for a lot of problems that would be mostly legal problems.

That's another problem that really isn't canvassed very much in the legislation and it was brought out, for example, when Bill C-31 was implemented. There were a number of court challenges and a number of legal problems. The federal government just looked at the first nations and said, well, yes, toodle-oo. There is a sense that if the legislation goes through, people will be really strapped to deal with a number of different problems, including enforcement of those provisions, with next to no support from other governments, financial or otherwise.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: You're saying you need more flexibility, that this is too much of a straitjacket. In areas of financial, management and accountability issues, you've had more difficulty implementing those because there aren't the resources there. Is that what I'm hearing you say? You've had more difficulty in implementing those as opposed to some of the other things like leadership selection and conflict of interest and so on, is that right?

Ms. Eileen Sasakamoose: I don't want to take the floor away from the chief, but I think what needs to be said is that there's an off-loading, obviously. That's the general perception of people, that the federal government doesn't want to have to deal with election issues that are being brought forward by band members across the country, mostly by individuals. They don't want to have to deal with issues around financial management, and they're more than familiar with those issues, because remedial management applies literally across the country. So the department is already encumbered with having to deal with these.

But what it seems they're trying to do with Bill C-7 is off-load that problem onto first nations themselves, with next to no resources. They don't have access to the justice department. They don't have access to internal mechanisms for resolving these issues. So they'll be thrown onto the court systems, and that is really quite a scary thought.

¹ (1525)

The Chair: Thank you.

Monsieur Binet, there are three minutes left.

[Translation]

You have three minutes, Mr. Binet.

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

Good afternoon. I congratulate you on your brief; I appreciated it very much.

I would like to ask you a question. The minister issued some directives before this bill was drafted. One of his requests was that the bill not infringe on ancestral rights.

Do you think this request has been met? I could also extend my question to cover treaties and the fiduciary relationship with the government. Do you think this bill has violated these rights? Were the minister's requests met?

[English]

Ms. Eileen Sasakamoose: First of all, I think one of the points the chief made--and I think this is an important point--is that as far as institutions of government are concerned, there has never really been a fair shake for first nations. I think the real difficulty is that it was as early as 1869, I believe, when the Indian Act was put in place, and not too long after that there were governmental rules drafted. The perception has always been that even though there are customary election regulation powers, and those have been respected for a number of years, there is a circumscribing of those governments. For some first nations, there has never really been the opportunity to go back and even explore what those traditional forms of government were--or are--much less to implement them.

What we see with Bill C-7 is that it entrenches Indian Act legislation along some other rules that the government feels governments ought to be accountable for. There has never really been a fair, I think, representation by first nations peoples of what those traditional forms of government would be for themselves, and this bill doesn't address that either. It simply says that there are some rules missing from the Indian Act, and that's what we need to cover off.

¹ (1530)

The Chair: Thank you.

We will invite you to make closing remarks.

Chief Roderick Alexis: I guess the accountability process they're proposing through Bill C-7 is not what our people at home are expecting. The perception of leadership is that you're voted in, and you're given the authority as a member of the community to speak on behalf of the community. You have that every right; you're given that basic outline. There's also a traditional method that you go through of taking the oath in office. Those are the strong points of our community.

This bill moves us away from that. I think the respect of the communities is not there. Basically, we're not leaders for the community if this whole process of Bill C-7 goes through, because the accountability and how the leadership will be viewed by the community is not there. We're basically administering your dollars; we've become administrators. The title of chief and council is just a term then; it's not what the community sees. I think what the communities are requesting is that we not go into the process of this type of initiative.

Thank you.

The Chair: I thank you very much.

Now we invite, from the Frog Lake Cree Nation, Councillor Lorraine Moyah.

Again, we have 30 minutes. Please proceed, and you can introduce your colleague.

Ms. Lorraine Moyah (Councillor, Frog Lake First Nation): Good afternoon.

I present Chief Quinney. I've asked him to sit beside me for moral support. I'm Councillor Lorraine Moyah.

The Frog Lake First Nation welcomes this opportunity to appear before this committee and present to you our position and understanding of the issues we face today and forthcoming.

Our community is comprised of just over 2,000 Cree people. Prior to the arrival of the Europeans, we had been living peacefully on this land in harmony with nature and in close cooperation with each other. Just over a hundred years ago, the new settlers began to appear. They took our land, our wildlife, our fish, and our trees. They claimed our lakes and rivers and more.

Over time, our people were pushed into occupying a small section of land near Frog Lake, where we reside today. In 1876 Chief Big Bear and several other chiefs signed Treaty 6. This treaty was thought to be a solution by our people. The treaty promised us food, farming equipment, medical supplies, money, and presumably some form of peace with the white settlers. This did not occur. Your government delayed bringing our people any food, supplies, or equipment of any kind. Our people were starving and had nowhere to turn.

Ten years later, after much suffering and neglect, a rebellion occurred at Frog Lake, on April 2, 1885. Despite Chief Big Bear's attempts to stop the hostility, nine white people lay dead at the end of the day.

Today, honourable committee members, I stand before you in hopes of establishing once again what Chief Big Bear and our people had intended from the beginning: the freedom to live on our homeland as we wish; the right to manage our lives on our own; and the title and rights to our lands, lakes, rivers, forests, and all resources that have always belonged to us.

Over a hundred years have passed. Our people are still starving. We live in deplorable housing conditions. Our lands have been harvested by your people, our forests cut down by industry and roads for your use. Our lakes and rivers have been taken from us by the province, and even the resources beneath our own feet are being removed from us, as we speak, by the oil and gas industry. This country and this province have used us and taken our resources and have left us with nothing. What will it take to stop this?

We understand that we now live in a new era in which society is based on economic and social accountability. The Department of Indian Affairs, the Indian Oil & Gas Corporation, the Province of Alberta, and the federal Government of Canada have not lived up to their fiduciary obligations, nor have they adhered to the terms and conditions agreed to in the treaty that was signed with us.

We firmly believe that in order to turn around the situation that has plagued our people for so long, this can only be resolved through giving back to us the right to manage our own lives and our resources.

Our people have always demanded accountability and transparency from their leadership. How is this possible when we have been forced to be accountable to the department alone, and not to our own people?

We have abided by your rules and your conditions, and look where we are today: no further than we were over a hundred years ago.

¹ (1535)

I stand before you today and ask that you grant us the freedom to self-government and the right to manage our lands as we see fit for our people. We shall act in a most honest and accountable manner in all our affairs, both with the Canadian government agencies and with the province. However, foremost, we shall be accountable to our own people first.

We wish to develop our own system of government, our laws, policies, and guidelines through which we may live in harmony with each other and the rest of Canada. We must regain title to our lands and resources and manage them as we did long before the arrival of the Europeans. We never agreed to the Indian Act. We never agreed to the Indian Oil and Gas Act. We never agreed to the province taking our lakes and rivers from us. We signed a treaty that to this day has not been honoured by your people.

In closing, I urge you and the people you represent to grant us the right to self-government, the right to maintain our culture and language, and the title and rights to our lands, rivers, and lakes given back to us to manage as we see fit. Our people have waited long enough and have suffered under your rule. That cannot be tolerated any more.

I thank you for your time and cooperation and look forward to positive results from our meeting today.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: My question is to the chief and Lorraine. I think I picked up on the very latter part of your comments here, Lorraine, your desire to move to self-government as quickly as possible--correct me if I misperceive in that. Anyhow, self-government agreements historically in Canada do take a few years to get implemented or to get to an agreement, because of the negotiations to be done, and so on. In the meantime, I don't think you have a lot of love for the Indian Act. You made some pretty strong statements about the disaster that was, and I think I agree with that.

So, again, do we just want to move with great haste to the self-government agreements and kind of keep the Indian Act in place in the meantime? Is that what the process involves in the years ahead?

¹ (1540)

Ms. Lorraine Moyah: I am prepared to answer the question; however, I would ask Chief Quinney if he wishes to respond.

Chief Raymond Quinney (Frog Lake First Nation): Thank you.

I suppose when you talk about self-government, we've always had self-government. I don't believe we ever gave that up. Speaking on behalf of my people and the way they view self-government, self-determination, we've always had that.

I guess it's Canada that needs to sanction or give us that self-government. I don't feel that this is something that should be given us; we've always had it. I believe we're going to continue to function that way, whether Bill C-7 comes around and dictates to us how we should select our leadership, our chiefs, our councillors, or whatever. I believe very strongly that the injustice that has plagued our people, as Lorraine has said, for over a hundred years is still there today.

If I could see how these laws that are being made are going to benefit the first nations of Frog Lake, or if my people could see that, perhaps that is something they would agree with. But so far all the legislation that has been passed.... The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms gives me the right, the freedom of choice, the freedom of movement, the freedom of religion. It gives me all these freedoms. Does Bill C-7 give me that freedom? I don't think so, and I don't think it's going to in the future. Basically, it's going to take away whatever rights I presently have. Those are my feelings.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: So if you already have self-government and self-determination, then what more do you need? You're saying you already have that--self-government, self-determination?

Chief Raymond Quinney: I believe those are my inherent rights, something I inherited. Yes, I believe that.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: So then you talk about a sanctioning of that. You already inherently possess those, so it's just a sanctioning of that, then?

Raymond Quinney: Is that something the Government of Canada would sanction? My elders have sanctioned it and they've told me that these are your rights.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Okay, that being the case then, you're not about to move into the route of a self-government agreement down the road? Is that what you're saying?

Chief Raymond Quinney: I guess what I'm saying is does Canada have to give me that right? I don't believe Canada has the right to give me self-government, because I believe we've always had self-government.

The Chair: If I may, just to clear this up, it's easy to agree with you that it's an inherent right.

I've never heard anybody say that the Indian Act, which was passed a long time ago, is a real good piece of legislation. But if the Indian Act created difficulties in the relationship and in your ability to self-govern, isn't it appropriate for you to sit with government and to say “Get us out of this Indian Act deal, and let us self-govern”, and sign on the dotted line and then do your own administration? Isn't this what we're trying to do? As soon as you ratify the fact that you have an inherent right to self-governance, you're no longer affected by the Indian Act, which is a flawed piece of legislation. This is what we're struggling with and need your help to understand.

Did you want to make a short comment on this? Mr. Laliberte was next.

Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian Alliance): I'll just follow up on that if I could, Mr. Chairman.

In the 1993 federal election campaign the Liberal Party in their red book recognized the inherent right to self-government. After that election the Minister of Indian Affairs went out across the country in an attempt to enter into agreements to give that right to self-government they had promised in the red book. Now, ten years later, Minister Nault says the process isn't going anywhere; it's stalled and it's unsuccessful. If the governing party recognizes that right and they're willing to recognize it in writing, why isn't it happening?

¹ (1545)

Chief Raymond Quinney: I really don't know why it's not happening.

You look at section 35. Basically, what the minister says is it's an empty box that's sitting there. Then the question is, why is there an empty box sitting there? When you begin to say treaty and aboriginal rights are recognized, where is the recognition? This is my question. When is Canada going to clarify what my treaty rights are? When are they going to honour section 35 and honour the Crown?

Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, Lib.): I had raised this perspective earlier, and it keeps coming back, that the relationship with the country is through treaty. When the Crown settled its differences with France, the treaty gave the British Crown the opportunity to engage in this country by treaty for the creation of a country. Now, when Canada was created, the Crown administered the country in the absence of the nation. All the legislation, the non-derogation that's referred to in the Constitution, refers to an ideal relationship in the future. Everything is on hold. It's like this one. This is an interim act. It's on hold until we come to the proper relationship.

Now, what I'm saying is, why can't we do it before 2004? An indigenous decade has been set aside worldwide. Why can't Canada engage with the policy statements that are here and a willingness for legislation to go forward? But we need the partnership of the treaty nations.

Can those treaty nations gather as nations? You've asked for the presence of the Prime Minister at this gathering. Is that what we hear, that you're searching for a relationship with the government and the Crown once and for all to settle that before these bills of inconvenience are presented before you?

Chief Raymond Quinney: Yes, I believe we are. I believe that's exactly what we're saying, because for too long all kinds of documentation, piles and piles and tons of paper, comes through our offices. We're always busy reacting, reacting to your requests. When will the day come when you're going to start reacting to our requests? We put countless resolutions together, but are those resolutions ever honoured? Are they ever discussed? Are they ever talked about?

Twenty-odd years ago I was chief. The same resolutions are being passed today as were being passed twenty years ago. Have we moved, has there been any success, is there any movement towards honouring or getting that partnership with Canada and the first nations people, or do the first nations people have to develop their own constitution, one that will complement the Canadian Constitution?

I guess there are many questions here we need to look at and to start looking at seriously, because I believe we've suffered long enough. My people have suffered long enough. Many of my people have died--suicide, you name it--and I think it's time committees like this sat down with the leadership.

I know chiefs and councillors are condemned for not doing their utmost for their people, but we certainly try every day, and our people do try. We've survived this long, and we will continue to survive, but we need to get that relationship going again.

That's all I have to say right now. I want to thank my councillor, Lorraine, for the short notice for me to sit here with her today. I believe this is my third appearance here. So thank you. I have no more comments.

The Chair: Thank you very much. We really appreciate your input, which was very helpful.

I understand that the Enoch Cree Nation is represented by Glen Generoux, the financial controller. Here again, we have 30 minutes.

¹ (1550)

Mr. Glen Generoux (Financial Controller, Enoch Cree Nation): I'd like to introduce myself, Glen Generoux, and Chief Lorne Morin and councillors Laura Morin and Kelly Morin.

Good afternoon. Enoch Cree Nation wishes to thank the committee for allowing us to address Bill C-7.

Throughout the day, you have heard the positions of other bands and tribal councils on Bill C-7. Enoch Cree Nation shares the same position and rejects Bill C-7 in its present form.

As for financial accountability, it costs one billion dollars to try to enforce the federal gun law, which is not working. It's $990 million over budget. Do you realize how many kids that money could have educated in first nations in the country? “Do as I say, not as I do” is the message the federal government is portraying here. Tell me, how is this democracy? How is the federal government being held accountable for going so much over budget on a bill, and then trying to push Bill C-7 on first nations people?

The consultation process is 30 or 45 minutes long for a band for organization. How is this suitable for an act that is going to profoundly affect more than a million first nations people across the country, and the future generations yet to come? “Sign it or starve” is the approach the Department of Indian Affairs takes with first nations every year. How is this democracy?

The Enoch Cree Nation has worked very hard over the past number of years to get out of remedial management. Tell me how much more can be done than this, given the amount of funding that comes from the federal government every year? Enoch Cree Nation has submitted population stats every year, which show how much the population has increased over the past 15 years. The population has tripled, but the funding has barely increased to match the population increase.

All Bill C-7 is going to do is to put a bigger financial strain on first nations as a whole. Who is going to pay for this and still stay under the magical 8% the Department of Indian Affairs imposes on all bands?

The First Nations Governance Act calls for first nations to develop the following: an election code, bylaw development, a membership code, and a financial management code, etc. All of these codes take careful planning and development, from the following teams of experts: consultants, accountants, lawyers, statisticians, and researchers, etc. All of the teams of experts cost money. For example, the Enoch Cree Nation has spent a good part of 18 months extensively working on this, changing our current Enoch Cree Nation membership code to correct and eliminate discriminatory provisions. Enoch has hired the best lawyers to address delicate and complex issues regarding our membership laws. The nation has consulted with its people and has held workshops and meetings numerous times to seek approval from the general membership.

This process costs money. Currently, we have spent in excess of $75,000 for one code. To add to this, finance had to approve this amount in our budget. This is just one of the above processes required for implementing a code. The other codes would probably cost more, because in Indian country you have to keep informing the general membership at large.

¹ (1555)

Debt and some of the other issues that we've talked about in reviewing the governance act and its profound effect on the first nations as a whole.... As I mentioned, Enoch Cree Nation has worked hard for four years to get out of a remedial management plan. Basically, the funding level the department has given to the Enoch Cree Nation over the past 15 years hasn't increased, but the population has tripled, and the housing requirements have tripled. Everything has tripled, but the funding stays the same.

How is this governance act going to address that issue? How is it going to make it better? Is it going to provide more funding to the band, or is it going to be all words? It's easy to give something. “Here, here's an act, have it. This is what you guys are going to live by. But if you guys step out of line on that act, there are consequences.” That's what you're telling the people here today.

This bill is the rules here. You keep saying “we, we, we”. There's no “we”. It's you guys putting something to us: “And these are the rules you have to live by. This is the self-government you guys are going to live by.” Half an hour here and there...consultations. Is that right? Is there a “we” there?

You're going to take all the information from this meeting and you guys are going to put it into some text for a bill without any real input on the translation of all the different clauses in the bill. That's one of the things I've discussed with Norm Brennand before. The interpretation of every clause is so wide open, and all it takes is a bureaucrat who won't put his name to anything to stall everything, to bottleneck it all. Meanwhile, the band people suffer, because nobody wants to take the bull by the horns at the end of the day. Again, there's no “we” there.

Again, we get the CFAs two weeks before the end of the fiscal year. We want to make changes and we're told, “No. And if you don't sign it, you don't get any money.” That's extortion.

How would you guys like all your paycheques held unless you agree to something? That's what we're talking about with this governance act.

In the bill itself, especially with the Indian money, there's a real wide-open clause there, and it's subject to interpretation by someone who is not familiar with how bands operate. Basically, any Indian moneys generated go to Ottawa. The band has to BCR it from Ottawa to pay the bills. Is that a bottleneck? Yes, it is. We can make money at a bake sale, and under that act we have to send it to Ottawa--a revenue trust account, BCR it down. That's how open it is on interpretation.

Be more specific, that's what we're asking. And if you say “we”, every time you say “we”, make sure you include us. We want a meeting with Chrétien. Our chiefs are here. Where's yours?

That's all I have to say.

º (1600)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I'll just make one short clarification: that Chrétien may be the chief of some of us, but not all of us. I'm sure my colleagues will agree.

Mr. Glen Generoux: He's the leader of the country, supposedly.

The Chair: That's right.

Mr. Glen Generoux: You all fall in that country.

The Chair: You said chief; you didn't say leader of the country.

Mr. Glen Generoux: Chief, leader...again, it's all subject to interpretation.

The Chair: I apologize for having made that comment.

Who will go first? Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I'd just remark that he's also the outgoing chief, so it's not the same any more.

I'm not sure any of you are able to respond to my queries here, but as I understand, on the significant band growth, some of the comments you made there are a bit troubling in terms of...I don't know if you said double or triple growth, but significant growth. I'm assuming these are all people who are band members. It may be naïve, but I thought funding was supposed to be on a per capita basis for on reserve. So do you appeal this, or what happens?

Surely if the birth rate is going up and it all constitutes band members, why aren't you getting the money, then? Do they just kind of turn you down flat, or say those numbers don't count, or what?

Mr. Glen Generoux: Basically, yes. In 1975 infrastructure capital for the Enoch Cree Nation was $75,000. That was in 1975. There were under 600 band members. In February 2003 there are just about 1,800 band members, and infrastructure capital funding is $75,000. What does that tell you?

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Am I wrong to assume that they fund on a per capita basis?

Mr. Glen Generoux: That's the whole idea, I guess, but it doesn't happen.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: So you say, hey, this is a significant explosion, the population growth that we've had, and they say, well, we don't believe those numbers; we don't accept those birth certificates. Or do you get any response at all?

Mr. Glen Generoux: We give them the statistics. We give them, among all the funding agencies, about 240 reports a year filled with stats. Nothing ever comes of it; it doesn't increase funding. The only increase we ever get is maybe for basic needs--social services, welfare--but it's also clawed back in other ways. We get funding on nominal roll for tuition.

As I mentioned, it's costing $1 billion to implement firearms registration, and we all know what that one is and the fiasco behind that. Who's being held accountable for that?

If this band gets over 8% of their annual expenditures a year, bam, RMP, and good luck trying to get out of it.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: As to the money not coming your way when you feel it is being made, when they claw back, what do they claw back? Is it based on some resource revenues or that type of thing? What do they claw back on?

Grand Chief Lorne Morin (Confederacy of Treaty 6 First Nations): We made our point very clear. You're asking questions, and really, I think the crowds here and first nations know about the funding levels. Basically, it's an envelope that regions have to work with and that's all we have to work with. Bottom line, that's the answer you get.

The point of this meeting today is to speak to Bill C-7. We've made our point very clear that we outright reject it. The bottom line again is that as chief of Enoch, I'm telling you that we outright reject Bill C-7. Along with the rest of the nations across this country, not only in Alberta, we are demanding a meeting with Mr. Chrétien. That's all we have to say for now.

The Chair: Thank you very much, and I thank you for your presentation.

We now invite the Ermineskin Tribe from Hobbema to present, with Chief George Les Minde and Carol Wildcat, as well as Gordon Lee.

Welcome.

º (1605)

Chief George Les Minde (Ermineskin First Nation): Thank you, and good afternoon, committee.

I'll start and make a brief presentation, and then I'll turn it over to Mr. Gordon Lee, former chief, long-time adviser, and advocate for the band. He has a brief statement he wants to make, and then we'll be ready for your questions.

Again, thank you for giving me a second opportunity to present before the standing committee.

At the outset, the Ermineskin Cree Nation must declare that Canada's past, current, and proposed legislative regimes regarding our land and our way of life are tantamount to a breach of the treaty we have with the Imperial Crown. The Ermineskin Cree Nation agreed under treaty to share the land. One of the key principles in our treaty is peace, order, and good government. This is a key factor the governments of Canada have failed to uphold at all levels of government. By maintaining the spirit and intent of this principle, our treaty relationship with other governments remains intact.

The unwritten constitution, the law of the land, was internalized in each way of our life. It is reflected in our language, our beliefs, and our political, social, and economic systems. That way of life continues today. Its universal symbol is the pipe, containing the truth we all know and respect. Our treaties, according to our elders' understanding, represent that truth.

Sadly for Canada, this is not so. The repatriation of Canada's constitution solidified the way of life of a foreign government on our land. The proposed governance legislation, Bill C-7, undermines the good governance mechanisms developed by the Ermineskin Cree Nation.

The Ermineskin Cree Nation developed and affirmed a constitution in 1982, and the Ermineskin Cree constitution is a model of good and proper governance. This constitution addresses the way the Ermineskin Cree people conduct their business and activities. The same year the Canadian constitution was repatriated, the Ermineskin Cree constitution was affirmed by the leadership of former Chief Lawrence Wildcat and his council.

The Bill C-7 governance act does not recognize the Ermineskin Cree Nation's foresight in developing a constitution that governs all aspects of our nation's activities. Presently in Canada, the Ermineskin Cree Nation is recognized as a model of good governance. The Ermineskin leadership and the people of Ermineskin request an answer to a question, and simply stated the question is, can you show the Ermineskin Cree Nation where our constitution has failed us?

We are proud to state that the Ermineskin Cree Nation has never been audited for poor governance practices, nor have we ever entered into third-party co-management. The Ermineskin Cree Nation has affirmed legislation as to our policies and procedures. The constitution also governs the roles and responsibilities of chiefs and council and other key management personnel. The Government of Canada's position is to categorize all first nations in the same category. Why hinder the progress of a nation that had the foresight to plan ahead?

For us nationally, the Ermineskin Cree Nation has a recognized education system. The dedication and progress achieved by the Ermineskin Education Authority, known as Miyo Wahkohtowin, are recognized, and it excels, recognized as being in the top percentage of all federal first nation school systems.

The Ermineskin Cree are also in the forefront of the Treaty 6 area in helping develop position papers and unifying educational systems on first nation lands. Federal departments request the participation of Ermineskin in many projects, and I believe federal officials in this room can attest to that.

The Bill C-7 governance act paints all first nations with the same brush. Each first nation has different needs and experiences different realities. There have been many first nations who have been coerced or manipulated into third-party co-management or other restrictive management policies. These first nations have not been given an opportunity to find avenues or solutions to address their issues.

º (1610)

The Ermineskin Cree Nation reaffirms our stance that we have a form of good and proper governance enshrined within the Ermineskin Cree Nation's constitution.

Thank you.

The Chair: Gordon Lee, we'll have you make your presentation.

Mr. Gordon Lee (Ermineskin First Nation):

[Witness speaks in his native language]

My Cree name is Ki'siban Ksay'yin. [Witness speaks in his native language]. I was given that name before I was a year old. I am 66 years old. I mention that because we still believe in our traditional names because to us they are sacred.

I wanted to say one thing right at the start to give you a little bit of an idea of what we've gone through under your government. Treaty 6 recognizes us as nations. If you read it, it refers to our people as nations. The royal proclamation recognizes us as nations, but the Indian Act doesn't even recognize us as persons. That should give you an idea how dehumanizing your administration has been to our people--your government.

The main message I'd like to pass on to you today is that since the creation of the Indian Act 127 years ago, we've never had the complete freedom to run our own affairs under our own jurisdiction as nations. In fact, the Indian Act was designed to take away our land and our authority as nations. I just wanted to refresh your memories; I'm sure you know why the Indian Act was created in the first place.

In the House of Commons debates on April 4, 1876--that was before the treaties were signed, even--the Indian Act was passed in the House of Commons; that's April 4, 1876. And if you look at the House of Commons debates, you will see why this Indian Act was created. It says that the purpose for this act is to break down the tribal system and to enable the white man to get possession of the lands of the Indian. History shows that Canada has had a long-standing agenda to accomplish that goal, and it still exists today--it still exists today.

As recently as August 2001, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien made a statement to the media where he said that when he was Minister of Indian Affairs in 1969 he wanted to get rid of the Indian reserve system because he felt that the reserve system would never work. Well, I say that it will never work because they never wanted it to work, plain and simple. And look at the mess we're in today.

º (1615)

We've been fighting for self-determination while they've been working to assimilate our people and take our lands. That's not a very healthy working relationship. When you look at our communities and when you listen to the minister, it seems like everything is our fault.

I wanted to comment too on a couple of other things. Indian Affairs is now starting to recycle some of the phrases they were using in the 1950s. For example, in the 1950s or in the 1940s or even later we were referred to as “wards of the government”. Nowadays it's a “fiduciary relationship” but to me it's still the same. We're still under the discretionary power of the minister.

I remember in the 1960s when Trudeau was Prime Minister, he used to say at conferences with our people that treaties are non-starters. That's what he used to say. Today Nault says he doesn't have a mandate to talk treaties. It's the very same thing. So it's no wonder the previous speaker, the chief from Frog Lake, said that today they're passing the same resolutions as they were passing twenty years ago. That may be the reason.

Throughout the years, as you know, INAC has come up with different initiatives intended to do away with our reserves and our status as treaty Indians: in 1984 or 1985, “Buffalo Jump”, the Nielsen report--they're all the same except that they come up with new titles--the 1969 white papers, the Hawthorn report, the Diamond Jenness report back in 1948. I can go on, but I think I should make my point that the government never wanted our reserve system to work. I don't think that can be denied.

Even today we still require the minister's approval to spend our own money--not government money, not taxpayers' money, but our own money. We still have to go to the minister for his approval, for his blessing. That's where we're coming from, very briefly. I'm sure there's more that can be said, and a lot has already been said to that effect.

Our elders and our medicine men have told us that the government is never going to stop. They're never going to abandon their incentive to get rid of our reserves. That's what our elders and our medicine men told us. Your government is never going to quit, and we're getting closer and closer to that buffalo jump. Somebody said here that we are survivalist nations, but as far as our survival goes we're teetering on extinction.

º (1620)

That's how the future looks for our people. That's what our elders and our medicine men said: the government is never going to quit. Let's say that the government initiatives didn't pass. We know that very quickly the government would come up with another scheme, because that's the way it's been, one after the other.

Our leaders spend so much time fighting the government that they don't have time to deal with the real problems. Our leaders are getting frustrated, all of us, and we hope you hear our message. I hope you can appreciate where we're coming from.

Somebody mentioned cultural genocide. We are victims of cultural genocide. Canada has the gall to charge somebody else for cultural genocide. Canada was a co-plaintiff with I believe the United States of America, and they charged some prime minister from Yugoslavia or somewhere for cultural genocide.

There's a thing called the clean hands doctrine. Canada doesn't have clean hands. Clean hands doctrine, as you know, means that if you're guilty of the same crime you cannot charge somebody else for that crime, because your hands are not clean. Canada's hands are not clean. It's guilty of committing cultural genocide.

I'll read this to you. It is from the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. it's a UN convention. Here are the definitions for genocide:

“(a) Killing members of the group.” Well, we all know about that smallpox experiment, the infected blanket.

“(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group.” I don't know if I need to explain that, but I'm sure after listening to all that's been said you'd understand we were victims of that.

“(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions that are calculated to bring about its physical destruction in all or in part.” I think that's the whole history of Indian Affairs. That's the whole history of the Indian Act.

“(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group.” That part we're still researching, but so far there is an indication that we have been victims of that crime as well.

“(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.” Well, we all know what happened with the residential schools.

So of those five definitions, clearly Canada is guilty of four of them, possibly five, all of them.

The Chair: I will say that I'm allowing you to go on, but the words that you say are not relevant to the work we have to do. I'm not saying that it's not important.

º (1625)

Mr. Gordon Lee: I don't know, I disagree with you. I say it's relevant.

The Chair: I will just say to you that normally I would rule out of order a lot of what was said today, this included. I will not do it. I just want you to know that I'm allowing you to go.

Mr. Gordon Lee: I don't think you're being fair. I say that there was a lady here earlier who said you cannot look at this in isolation, and that's what's happening. You have to look at the whole picture to really understand. But I'll keep quiet, sir. Thank you.

The Chair: Who will be first? Mr. Chatters.

Mr. David Chatters: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Certainly all that I know about the Ermineskin Nation supports what you said today, that they truly are an example of good governance and good management. Therefore, it begs the same question that I asked an earlier witness. When in 1993 the Liberal government recognized self-government and sent the minister out to sign agreements recognizing that self-government, especially given the resource revenues that your band has and that you would become in full control of, why did you not enter that self-government agreement? Did you ask to negotiate and were turned down? Why did your band not access that opportunity to get out from under the Indian Act and run your own affairs?

Chief George Les Minde: I think a proper response could come from Mr. Lee, actually. You may get a better answer.

Mr. Gordon Lee:

I'm sorry, I missed the first part of your question.

Mr. David Chatters: Given the ability the band has to govern itself and the record they have of governing themselves--a record of good governance, good management, and of having the institutions in place that are working for them--then why did they not take the opportunity when the Minister of Indian Affairs back in 1993 or 1994 offered it to the Indian bands? Why did Ermineskin not take that opportunity to get out from under the Indian Act, have full control of your resource revenues, and govern yourselves as you see fit? It would have seemed that your band in particular was a natural one that would have taken the opportunity.

Mr. Gordon Lee: Thank you.

I don't know if I can really answer your question. I wasn't involved at the time. All I know is what I heard from some of our leaders. I could be wrong, but I seem to remember that one of the reasons the inherent right policy was rejected was because of the fact that our people were not recognized as nations, and that this whole policy would be a delegated measure that didn't really recognize our people's real authority, real jurisdiction as nations.

Mr. David Chatters: Okay, so it really goes back to this whole issue that it seems to me should have been settled between your nations and the Government of Canada before we ever went down this road of Bill C-7. We should have resolved the issue of the recognition of aboriginal sovereignty, rather than the concept of inherent right to self-government.

Chief George Les Minde: Yes, I'd agree with that.

Mr. David Chatters: Okay.

The Chair: Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Maybe just to steal your perspective on this, in large part, a lot of this accountability, transparency, these leadership concerns, a lot of this rhetoric, came from Parliament. I've heard this rhetoric over the last five years, sitting in Parliament, coming from different sources. Accountability of chiefs, mismanagement, election results...everything is bubbling. So this, in large part, is the minister's response to the pressure inside Parliament.

But at the same time, there has been a relationship with the first nations of the country. Some of them are treaty; some of them aren't, because of unfinished treaty areas--British Columbia, as an example. But we have different treaties as well. We have the numbered treaties; we have the eastern treaties, the Robinson-Huron Treaty, and so forth. There is a variety of different treaties. But one thing that stands constant is this nationhood, of understanding who our nations are. Neheyawuk...we know who Neheyawuk are, but it's not in here. It's not recognized in government documents.

So let's say a band runs into financial trouble. It may not be yours, but a band of Cree, a band of the Cree Nation. If you've created a Cree nation, if that band runs into trouble, then let's say the expertise of your band, part of your own nation, might come to their assistance in election problems or fiscal problems. That seems to be the understanding, but it's not designed here. A first nations enforcement officer could be anybody. With the third-party co-management that's taking place right now, it could be anybody. It's not drawing from our own resources, our own expertise.

We may have financial experts on the northeast corner of the province because there's a university or college that has expertise at that. Maybe the northern people don't have the doctorate degree in finance, but they might be the best rabbit snarers in the world. So you have to draw on the resources of your nation.

Working on the band council structure, it doesn't build on those strengths. The question is, should we be designing a relationship based on nation, on governance? Counter this.

º (1630)

Chief George Les Minde: I think the relationship that needs to be built is a nation-to-nation relationship. I don't think that's ever been fully and sincerely attempted at this point. It's always been a top-down approach. I suppose that's the best way I can answer that. We'd like to envision somewhere down the road that there be that type of relationship, but currently that doesn't exist.

As far as sharing expertise with other first nations is concerned, we don't have any difficulty doing that providing we don't overstep what it is we're being asked to assist with. As I mentioned in a previous presentation, we can't speak for other first nations and we can only go so far as they want us to assist them. We don't want to change their customs and practices, because it may not be suitable for them.

The Chair: Mr. Hubbard.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a couple of comments.

First, Chief George, I'd like to congratulate you. You have good management and you've never apparently had the problems that some of our other people have had with third party management and so forth.

And, Chief Lee, you were a chief, I understand, before. It's certainly good to hear a man of history.

I have not studied the debate of the Indian Act of the 1870s, but I think we all have to remember that among everyone there are good people and bad people. I hope there were a number of good people, too, who were trying to do something good when they brought in that act in the 1870s. But the debates we have in the House reflect people all across the country and we have to be careful that we don't look at only the bad people. So I hope we can put it into perspective.

Today we're looking at the second time we've attempted in the last three Parliaments to bring forward a change to the Indian Act. Former Minister Irwin attempted to bring in an optional act whereby first nations could opt in or opt out.

With the present one, apparently, we have not considered the opting in or opting out. But in terms of first nations who have always had good management, who have good codes of their own, those involved with Bill C-7, maybe our committee could consider that.

We also have to think in terms of this third party business, because some first nations groups have to spend a lot of money one year in order to do something for the next year, whether it be with housing or with education and so on, and of course there's no leeway in terms of the present system. It's all in a single year as to whether or not you're getting into difficulty. In other words, they can't plan for two or three years in terms of their spending.

We didn't hear much in terms of the bill itself in the presentations here today. A lot of them have talked about process, but as a committee we don't deal with process. They send us out to do a job, and our job is to look at Bill C-7 and look at what suggestions the various people would make to improve Bill C-7.

Considering that, are there any suggestions you would like to make in terms of opting in and opting out, in terms of...? Perhaps Chief Gordon will....

º (1635)

Mr. Gordon Lee: I'm just trying to find my notes here. Yes, that is one of the options that has been discussed by the leaders, an opting in and opting out clause as well as a non-derogation clause on treaties.

Personally, I guess I could live with that, but I don't know about these other people. I don't speak for anybody. As far as opting in and opting out, if you don't like it you get out of the system. I think that opportunity should be there for us.

Thank you.

The Chair: Okay, we'll move on the next group, but I should verify something. I should be corrected if I'm wrong. Opting in, opting out--that would be opting in to the amendments of the Indian Act, which is Bill C-7. Not opting in would mean staying with the existing Indian Act, if I'm correct in saying that.

Mr. David Chatters: I don't think so.

The Chair: That's the way it was in 1996 when we did the Indian Act.

Mr. David Chatters: I think in this particular case, because Bill C-7 is amending the Indian Act, opting out would be the option of self-government that Minister Nault says is available. If your band is ready, that's your option. You opt out of the Indian Act, including Bill C-7, and your other option is the self-government option.

The Chair: No, that's not correct.

Negotiating a self-governance agreement automatically takes you out of the Indian Act, automatically everything.

Mr. David Chatters: Bill C-7.

The Chair: Everything, yes. But when we did the Indian Act in 1996-97, there was an opt-in clause, and the opt-in was to opt in to the amended Indian Act. If you didn't opt in to the amended Indian Act, you stayed with the old one.

I make that point in case the committee recommends that we have that clause or not.

We've gone over our time. We appreciate your presentation. Do you have a short comment for us?

Mr. Gordon Lee: Thank you very much. I appreciate that.

There's one thing I forgot to mention when this gentleman asked about opting in and opting out. Considering the history of INAC and the Indian Act and the way things are happening today, it seems like nothing has changed, that as long as we are under the jurisdiction of the Government of Canada this game or process will never end.

The other condition I would like to see is our jurisdiction as nations being recognized. That's very important.

The Chair: Thank you very much, all of you. It has been very interesting and very helpful.

To everyone in the room, we have one more presentation of 30 minutes. After it we will invite to the table anyone who has not spoken today and who wishes to make a two-minute comment.

I invite now from the Tsuu T'ina First Nation, Chief Sandford Big Plume, Councillor Regena Crowchild, and Councillor Bruce Starlight.

Please proceed.

º (1640)

Mr. Bruce Starlight (Councillor, Tsuu T'ina First Nation): Mr. Chairman, I was also there when they were talking about Bill C-31. At that time, the government promised they were going to give us more resources for the people who were going to be put on our list, but we didn't believe them. And we don't believe this is a good bill.

You continue to ask, “What's the best thing to do with this bill?” Just withdraw it, plain and simple, because whatever has happened in the past is being repeated. There's no recognition of treaty and inherent rights of self-determination.

Mr. Chairman, I was sued by my own chief because I spoke up about mismanagement of funds. So where are we today? We went into third-party management, which is like closing the door after the horse got out. The horse has gone already. We're $7 million in the red, and you guys made us go into third-party management.

Again, when we made the presentation on Bill C-31, we asked, “What about the people who are coming back, or how are you going to look after them?” They're still not being looked after, so we're still in court with the federal government to prove we are a government and that the treaties were signed for a purpose—for you to enjoy the benefits of the resources, and for us to enjoy the benefits flowing from the treaty promises.

There's no way you can make this bill better, because you've isolated the treaties in Bill C-6. How the hell are you going to make it better? The minister says he has no mandate to talk about treaties under Bill C-7, yet when we tried to talk about Bill C-6 we were bumped. They took us off.... Instead, they had a white man, an expert, to talk about Bill C-6 to the exclusion of the treaty Indians.

You have nine bills you're going to try to push through by the end of June, before the summer recess.

Yes, don't shake your head to me, I know it.

The Chair: We won't do it, because we won't have the time.

Mr. Bruce Starlight: I hope not. What you're doing right now is illegal, my friend. Your constitution tells you how to deal with us, and you're not listening to yourselves. We're talking about a nation-to-nation negotiation on what we mean by self-determination, and you're not doing it.

You're still telling us, the people who came to our shores, how to live our life, and we're saying let us help you make some legislation that will work for us, that will make us economically sound. This process you're going through is the process determination. There are 1,400 Tsuu in there. Where are you going to put us? Because everything you're doing is taking away our land.

Someone here talked about natural law before. It's you as a human being, it's how you live your life and how it fits in with the Creator's plan--that's natural law.

Someone else here talked about an elder who said that we only plan our lives two weeks at a time. That's bullshit. I have to answer to my grandchildren for what I'm saying here today. And I want to tell my grandchildren that I stood up to the white man and to the government because they're trying to take things away from us today.

This is unfinished business, my friend. We haven't even sat down and talked about the treaty, and you're sitting here and saying “We have a great deal for you.” You're a good used car salesman, is what you are.

º (1645)

The Chair: I will interject. There is only so much abuse that this committee should accept. We accept a lot, but we are not the government. You are talking to the government; we are not the government. We will take the abuse, but I ask you to be gentle on us, too.

Mr. Bruce Starlight: Okay. Well, you see how harsh it is on us.

The Chair: Yes, I do.

Mr. Bruce Starlight: It's very harsh on us.

There's a guy I caught this morning, Dave Rutherford, your friend. He's telling people that the $200 million is taxpayers' dollars. That isn't. It comes from the resources of this land. And $12.8 million has been spent on this farce. We could have built houses.

I want to introduce Regena Crowchild. She might be kinder to you, Mr. Chairman.

You always say that the women are kept in low esteem. That's the white man's culture. Among the Indians, before the white men came and even now, the women are held in high esteem, because they are the power of the tribe. In Tsuu T'ina, most of our lead staff are women.

So I want to correct anyone saying that women are not important to the tribes. You are wrong. Most of our women are lawyers. So I'm trying to set the record straight, Mr. Chairman.

If I've been abusive, guess where I'm coming from? From a people who have been held down, and in 2003 we're still being held down like children. We're saying give us the power to empower our people, and we'll be rich and we'll never have to bother you again.

Councillor Regena Crowchild, welcome to Treaty 7 territory. We haven't crossed the river yet.

Ms. Regena Crowchild (Councillor, Tsuu T'ina First Nation): Thank you, Bruce.

Good afternoon. I'm sorry I'm late, but I didn't know you had moved it up. Thank you for allowing us time--although very limited--to express our view on Bill C-7.

Be it known that the Tsuu T'ina Nation rejects Bill C-7. Our nation is party to Treaty 7.

The whole approach to this legislation has been in breach of the solemn treaty signed between first nations and the British Crown. There have been bad faith discussions, and, dare we add, the Minister of Indian Affairs is attempting to give credibility to this process by using members of the House of Commons.

The bill has been tabled for legislation without adequate and meaningful consultation with indigenous peoples in the process. Specifically, nations who have treaties with the British Crown have been absent entirely during the so-called consultation process, which arguably falls far short of the requisite consent required as stated repeatedly by your own Supreme Court of Canada.

Tsuu T'ina peoples are descendants of our ancestors who have occupied the Great Turtle Island from the time of creation and as such have been entrusted as caretakers of the land. We have our own territory, our own language, our own history, our own laws, and our own government. These were gifts from the Creator to our peoples.

Our peoples have a right and an obligation to determine our future, the future of our children, their children, and the children yet unborn. These rights were not given by the Imperial Crown and cannot be legislated by the successor state, Canada.

In 1877 our peoples entered into a peace treaty with the British Crown. Our peoples were not conquered at war. The only legitimate way for non-indigenous peoples to live on our lands was by virtue of the treaty. This is international law.

In the peace treaty our peoples agreed to live side by side with the newcomers without interference. Both the indigenous peoples and the non-indigenous peoples were to enjoy their treaty rights freely and live up to their obligations under treaty. Our peoples have never interfered with the treaty rights of the non-indigenous peoples, thus upholding our end of the bargain.

Our difficulty comes with the assertion of the state of Canada. This is a government created by British Parliament in 1867 with the British North America Act, subsequently amended by the Constitution Act of 1982.

Our nation was part of the legal action that took place in London, England, prior to the patriation of Canada's Constitution, which resulted in the inclusion of section 35 of the Constitution Act 1982.

May we remind this committee that the House of Lords looked at the treaties and the state of Canada. Lord Denning, in his judgment, wrote that no Parliament or legislation can change our treaties. We see the Minister of Indian Affairs using Parliament in an attempt to change our treaties in a fundamental way. The whole approach to this legislation has been a breach of the treaties. The legislation as it stands is prima facie a breach of the Crown's duty to honour the treaties in good faith.

The fundamental problem with the legislation is the clauses that set restrictions on our nations on how we can agree in the future on the style and format of our government. The only version is the municipal-style structure proposed by the minister.

We are being coerced and bullied into a municipal style of government. The proposed legislation fetters and restricts our nation's ability to determine our future based on our own laws and values.

This legislation, without going into detail on the many problems it creates, is a violation of Canada's international obligations under the treaties and intends to make the treaties dormant through this process.

º (1650)

In 1999 the United Nations accepted the final report of the special rapporteur who had been charged with reviewing the international status of treaties concluded between indigenous peoples and European crowns and their successor states. After 500 years of colonization indigenous peoples were found to be not objects but subjects of international legal norms. He concluded that these treaties need to be honoured by the original signatories and their successors.

Once we start with the premise that our treaties are internationally recognized instruments, what is Canada's obligation under international law with regard to our treaties? Canada is obligated to implement those treaties in good faith. As we stated earlier in our presentation, this legislation is not in good faith. We ask this committee, what is your mandate? What is your authority? Are our concerns and opinions discussed here today going to be utilized in a fair and constitutionally recognized manner? Do you have the authority to protect our treaty rights from being threatened, altered, or dissolved by Bill C-7?

We also ask for a legal opinion of Canada's fiduciary obligations with regard to our treaties and treaty rights in relation to the effect Bill C-7 will have.

This is our presentation. You gave us five minutes to present our position on Bill C-7. It is very sad to say that the indigenous peoples, who have signed treaties and have lived up to them, are not allowed by the successor state of the Imperial Crown to address our issues in a manner that is equitable and in an efficient way that is acceptable to both parties. So we ask again that you listen carefully and hope that you are able to do something about our treaties.

When it comes to being nice to the Canadian government representatives, as Bruce said, I might be nicer to you, but it is with great sorrow in my heart that I know Canada continues to try to dissolve our treaties and to treat us as objects and put us beneath the Canadian government. If it weren't for the treaties and our lands, the Canadian government would not be on our lands. So we ask our Creator to help us in this process so that you will hear our words and we will be recognized as nations, which we are.

Thank you.

º (1655)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

You mentioned that we asked for a five-minute presentation, but it has taken sixteen minutes. I'm glad we allotted more time, because what you say is valuable and we are very interested in it.

Mr. Bruce Starlight: Mr. Chairman, I guess the best thing you can do with this bill is to get some matches, light a fire, and warm some pizzas with it. It's not worth the paper it's written on.

Only one-third of the chiefs in Alberta are treaty Indians. The AFN must speak on behalf of all the chiefs, but we only make up one-third of the assembly. So we're in a weak position. You can fit a lot of the reserves in B.C. who are accepting the changes on the biggest reserve here in Alberta. There's no equity. These changes are going to affect people with a land base, the treaty Indians. So we're at a disadvantage.

The interest groups are also driving this bill, not the treaty Indians. We know the treaties are living spiritual documents. As Howard Mustus said, the pipes were there. It's important to us, because we were not supposed to veer from the articles of treaty—and we haven't. We are responsible for our grandfathers in the past and our grandchildren in the future, because of that pipe.

In your culture, I know that everything has to be written down. The problem here is that there are two cultures. Everything we do in our culture and everything you do in your culture is different. In this country, we've been going in parallel directions and been trying to do the same thing for the economic well-being of our people, but we've never met.

God said to the white man in the Bible, “I'll give dominion over the world to men”, but not to us. God put us here and said, “You'll be part of my creation”. That's where we're coming from. According to our laws, you have no right to tell another human being how he should live, my friend.

I know you're sitting here as representatives of the government. We understand that you should not be taking abuse, but we're getting abuse from our people because we're in third-party management. I guess part of this is venting, because we have been driven to third-party management. The government had many opportunities to step in and say “That's enough, I want accountability”. I guess I'll put this back in your lap. The only people who came to our aid when we were fighting the mismanagement of funds was the Reform Party at the time. It was just them; the Liberals weren't around. So I tip my hat to the Reform Party for part of this, and maybe they're the ones we should be dealing with.

I guess the agenda was set by our Prime Minister, Jean Chrétien, in 1969. He wants to leave that as a legacy, and say “I awoke the Indians”. Maybe that's what he's trying to do, Mr. Chairman.

» (1700)

The Chair: Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I would have to believe, Mr. Chair, that the members around this table would really have in their hearts a desire for the Crown to be honoured and those treaties honoured. I certainly do commend some of my colleagues, whom you allude to, people such as Myron Thompson, and John Duncan, who has a first nations wife, and their heart to deal with some of these. I think they felt frustrated. They obviously never got the kind of result they wanted in terms of those issues with our predecessor party, the Reform Party, but we carry on and we try.

I want to ask Chief Bruce or Jim or Regena, you did mention the issue of the fiduciary responsibility again, and maybe I'm not understanding something said by Gordon Lee here just prior to your arrival, Regena. Maybe it's because I'm misunderstanding something or didn't quite figure out what he was saying there, but time and again through the day and in presentations we've heard about, as I've heard from first nations friends who stressed this, the fiduciary responsibility. But Gordon made the comment that he wants to do away with that. He doesn't like that term, says it's patronizing, ward of the state.

Maybe Bruce was here or Jim was, but what am I to make of that? Is there something I'm not picking up in between the lines in terms of what Gordon Lee had mentioned? He talked about how he doesn't like that term, “fiduciary responsibility”, that it gives the impression of being a ward of the state, that type of thing.

Here again, though, I hear you say that the fiduciary responsibility is crucial. I hear most people say that from a first nations perspective. So is there something else going on here? What have I missed? What should I read between the lines? What do you understand by the term “fiduciary responsibility”?

Ms. Regena Crowchild: You know, the English language is an alien language to us. If we told you in our language, maybe you'd understand it better.

There are benefits and obligations under any treaty. The Imperial Crown had certain benefits and certain responsibilities and obligations under that treaty. The central government of Canada, which is now the federal government, was given the trust responsibility to implement those treaties and live up to their obligations under treaty to the indigenous peoples. You have within your government the Minister of Indian Affairs, who is responsible to the indigenous peoples, so it is his duty. We're talking about a trust responsibility.

In the English language, you talk about a “fiduciary responsibility”. We put those together.

As we said, we as indigenous peoples have our government, we have our land, we have our history. We are responsible today for our future and that of our children. We go seven generations down, and we look after Mother Earth. It often is believed by non-indigenous peoples that because we are indigenous peoples and Canada fails to look at us as peoples, we don't know what we are doing, that only you can tell us and look after what we're doing. That is totally incorrect.

“Fiduciary”, the way I understand the English language--and I stand to be corrected--means you're doing something on behalf of somebody who has no ability to make decisions for himself or herself or to do things on their own. But that's not the way we look at it. You have a trust responsibility to ensure that the treaties and the treaty rights are honoured for our people.

» (1705)

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I guess Bruce and Chief Jim were in at the time that Gordon spoke before. I'll have to talk to him personally on this one, because I was a little confused at that point.

What did you understand by the comments earlier, that some don't want to use the term “fiduciary” because it's misconstrued, it's used wrongly? Some like to use that term and hammer that home.

Mr. Bruce Starlight: Mr. Chairman, it would be unfair for me to speak on Gordon's behalf. Gordon knows best what he meant.

We, the Tsuu T'ina, are one of the reserves that's most affected, because we're right outside the city of Calgary, and a fiduciary or trust responsibility, or whatever you call it, is crucial to us. If Ermineskin wants to respond to you, I'll back off and let them respond, but it's crucial to us, the Tsuu T'ina. And like the presentations, the diversity from nation to nation is there.

I don't want to answer for Ermineskin. They have their own chief, their own elders, and if they want to respond to you, I'd rather have them respond. I can only speak for Tsuu T'ina and my grandchildren, because we will be the reserve most affected, because we're surrounded by the city of Calgary.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Hubbard.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm not sure, Chief Jim, if you or Chief Bruce want to answer this, but--

Mr. Bruce Starlight: I talk like a chief, but I'm not a chief.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: When you talk about third-party management, and this has been a problem for you and your people, how long have you been under that? Is it recent?

Mr. Bruce Starlight: We're in co-management.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: You're not in third-party management?

Mr. Bruce Starlight: No, we're not in third-party management. We sat down with the Department of Indian Affairs on my first day in office. The auditors were sitting there and they said they were putting us into third-party management. We asked how much it had cost the Stoneys, and they said $8 million a year. We said that just by paying for the third-party management, we'd be over our 8%, so I said that somebody would have to redo the math for the Department of Indian Affairs. So we said we'd do it ourselves, we'd look after our own finances.

Right now, Mr. Chairman, we're $1.2 million in the black, and that's without the Department of Indian Affairs.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: This is one of the points of concern in this governance bill, because I know many of us are really concerned that when a first nation gets into difficulty financially, this third-party management thing goes in and then the chief and council have lost control of their resources. At least that's what happens on most reserves.

With that, the party that looked after it, the so-called auditors or the so-called accountants, take a lot of the revenues, to the point where the chief and council don't seem to be able to ever get back, if the bill's paid off, and get control again.

When you studied Bill C-7, did you have any input in terms of the minister's task force on this when they were doing this last year, Chief?

» (1710)

Mr. Sandford Big Plume ( Policy Analyst and Research Director, Tsuu T'ina First Nation): Just to clarify, I'm not the chief. I'm the policy analyst and research director for Tsuu T'ina First Nation.

From what I understand of our arrangement with the federal government in terms of RMP, the arrangement did come about as a result of the deficit created by our tribe, but I don't believe we should be accepting total blame for this deficit we have encountered. Over the years and for generations we've witnessed many institutions being implemented by the federal government, and once these institutions are implemented we are never adequately funded to carry on the jobs those institutions were intended for.

The first nations, and specifically Tsuu T'ina, were required to find avenues of resource funding development in order for us to accommodate those institutions. Such was the case when, given our proximity to Calgary and based on our population explosion, so to speak, we were not able to access any additional funds. Nor did the federal government recognize that with the creation of the institutions placed on Tsuu T'ina Nation we could not quite handle all of those institutions at that point in time.

We see that as a benefit to us for the future, but for the present we continue to struggle through this RMP arrangement to convince the federal government that we are a responsible tribe, that we do attempt to meet the demands of all of our people. But when you have instances such as what has happened in the case of the Corbiere, where Bill C-31 members are placed on our nation's list and the first nation is required to become financially and fundamentally responsible for these people without the support from the federal government, those are the types of occasions when you will see deficits rise on first nations.

We cannot simply say to the federal government, yes, we accept your proposals, we accept these new acts that are being promoted to us today. As I said earlier, we're practically being given a blank cheque with probably zero amount in the bank account. Because of that, it's led to our tribe becoming at times divided. People were fighting with each other, fighting with the chief and councils, fighting among people with us in the city of Calgary. But it all boils back to the simple fact that because of part of our problems, the creation of some of these institutions created a bigger deficit for us.

In terms of meeting with the minister on all of these issues, we've voiced our concerns to the minister, to Mr. Nault, and to the past minister, Ron Irwin, and we have still not received an adequate response in terms of what funding capabilities and fiduciary obligations we may attract from the federal government. So in the interim, we're in limbo on how we address the future.

In terms of Bill C-7, it only further complicates matters for us. There are other issues involved with this introduction of Bill C-7. You've heard from many around this table and in this room, and from other first nations across the country, that there was never proper consultation done with this. In terms of the chief and councils more specifically, I can say that on Tsuu T'ina we did have a few meetings, but our tribe is one where we do not have, shall we say, the capabilities to be able to present the required information that the nation members really need to see the effects of this bill. We cannot present the required information to each and every nation member for them to make an informed decision on how they would direct the Tsuu T'ina chief and council to proceed.

» (1715)

The other issue that brings to mind is when we attempted to assist the Department of Indian Affairs in providing information to our nation's membership, not so much as a promotion, but for the information and to red flag for the nation members that there's something coming down the pipe here and we had better be prepared for it, again, there was inadequate funding placed before it. Even the most recent funding that has been accorded to the Tsuu T'ina Nation comes with stipulations that we are not allowed to have one particular person from the nation speak to the nation membership on this issue. Rather, the funds are more geared to assist to pay for rental of buildings, and for meals, what I look at as being coercive tactics for bringing the nation membership to an understanding that, yes, this is a good bill. But they do not have the adequate information to make a sound decision on what is going to affect all first nations for now and forever.

As my councillors said earlier, we are here to voice our concerns about this bill, because we are here to protect the interests of our children, our grandchildren, and for the next seven generations.

One other concern is that there are a number of other bills that are out there, and are all first nations really aware of what the impact of these bills will be on themselves personally and on our treaty rights? I would profess to say no, the information is not out there for the first nations to take advantage of. We have elders who have asked me questions such as has anyone ever undertaken to do a study of what bills are out there, all of these legislative policies that have been presented thus far? The answer again is no. What we find is that there is more concentration geared towards this promotion of a bill that the first nations do not want in the first place.

I'm going to quote, Mr. Chairman Bonin, from a meeting held last week: “This bill, if it were to be recognized as a new car”--

The Chair: [Inaudible—Editor].

Mr. Sandford Big Plume: If I'm buying a new car, it was said in the meeting last week, I would ask my salesman, what are the chances of this breaking down? If it is a new bill, what types of warranties or guarantees do I have that this will not fail? Can I bring it back and trade it in if it's not the one I want? I commend you for that comparison.

Granted, the Indian Act is archaic. It's an old jalopy. But it's something we've learned to live with. The Tsuu T'ina learned to live with the smallpox epidemic, which we beat. I'm proud to say that we're here today, when in 1900 we were determined by the archeological societies of the day to be a nation that would become extinct.

By the way, in terms of archeologists doing studies on first nations in North America, I reiterate one of the comments made by Councillor Starlight. Archeologists are looking for the first white man in North America. You're not going to find him. He went back over the Bering Strait, the last we saw of him.

The Chair: You have one minute left. You have had forty minutes.

Mr. Sandford Big Plume: I'll end there in favour of Councillor Crowchild.

» (1720)

Ms. Regena Crowchild: You mentioned that you wanted to know if we participated in the round of consultations. The Department of Indian Affairs in our area did provide us with some information. We attended. Some of our people went--some other people were not treaty people--to some meetings where they were able to view the tape of the message from the minister.

We've also had internal discussions on this bill, but we came to the conclusion--as was represented--in our community that we reject this bill for the very reason we pointed out.

The first time we looked at that video, it was very confusing. In fact, it took some of the minister's civil servants a long time to understand what was being said or what the minister was trying to achieve, so it wasn't just us. I just wanted to point that out to you.

Actually, at one point, way before the governance bill--it was called Bill C-61, I think, at the time it was first introduced--we met with the Minister of Indian Affairs. And at that time we made him an offer that if he truly wanted to make amendments to the Indian Act that would be fair and represent the treaty position, we, the indigenous peoples, would do those amendments for him and we would assure him that all parties to the treaty--the descendants of the people who entered into and concluded the treaty--would be satisfied, because the treaties would be honoured.

We never got a reply. Instead, Bill C-61 came. It died. Bill C-7 came in. So our words fell on deaf ears.

I want to let you know as well that I chaired the remedial management committee--that's what we call our committee--a couple of years ago. At that time, we had insufficient funding from the department to support us. We tried to generate some revenue for ourselves through economic development, but again, through the designation process or the processes under the minister we were stalled and we could never get anywhere.

In fact, we had to do one designation by our own lawyer, who did it for the Department of Indian Affairs, because the justice department was not able to do it. Yet you have a whole building full of lawyers who cannot do the job expediently and in a manner that would be effective and appropriate for us.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I hope I made up for having asked you to come forward earlier. We went 43 minutes.

Now we will invite individuals to come up and make two-minute statements. For those of you who wish to make a statement, please register at the table. They will feed the names here, and I will call you as we progress.

The first person to present will be Rene Metacat. You can sit at the front or wherever you feel comfortable. We'll take a second for you to have the room for yourself.

Please proceed. You have two minutes.

Mr. Rene Metacat (Individual Presentation): Thank you for this time. My name is Rene Metacat, and I'm elected councillor for the Upper Hay River District 212, Meander River.

I've heard a lot about democracy. I was voted in November 9, 2001, yet the Department of Indian Affairs is still keeping me out and is not paying me. I gave a copy of this to a couple MPs. If Robert Nault is so concerned about what's going on, I've sent him copies of letters, the whole truth, and he hasn't done anything about it. He writes back to me and says the department does not have a copy of the swearing in of Mr. Sydney Chambaud and Mr. Stanley Salopree.... A general election for the council of the Dene Tha' First Nation was held November 9, 2001, and another on December 20, 2001, for the Meander River community.

If he's so concerned about Dene Tha' First Nation, why is it that we Dene Tha' are in the red money-wise while we're supposed to be the richest band in Alberta oil-wise? Right now my band is broke. Do you see any chief and council from Dene Tha' sitting here talking to you guys? Indian Affairs is stopping them over there.

From Meander River to Edmonton, I am a councillor, but from Edmonton to Ottawa, somebody else is councillor. The elders are standing behind me and they said “What you're doing, just keep doing”.

I thought I would bring this to your attention.

» (1725)

The Chair: We thank you very much. You did get it on the record.

Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I'm not sure if it came to your attention as well, but we have these letters on what seems to be the proper election but in which he's not being recognized as councillor.

The documents are all here, and in view of this brief presentation I guess we could make some representation to the minister.

The Chair: The letters were not presented to the committee, but were given to individual MPs.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: So the MPs could pick it up—

The Chair: You can pick it up, or you can bring it to the attention of our committee when we get back to Ottawa. Then we will distribute....

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: There certainly seems to be need for some redress here.

Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. David Daniels, please proceed.

Mr. David Daniels (Individual Presentation): [Witness speaks in his native language].

Greetings, Chairperson. I'm here today to discuss the issue of self-government and the impact it will have on the people of my reserve.

I cannot accept this governance act, because Treaty 7 still exists and the elements that were promised in it still exist.

Because of self-government agreements signed behind closed doors, some of my band members were not aware of it. There is no process for the people to discuss this issue. If the governance act was brought into our reserve, then it was not with the approval of some of our band members.

When the treaty was signed, promises were made to the Stoney people in exchange for a peace treaty and its lands. These promises were made, including the elements of this earth, and have yet to be fulfilled. Perhaps that is why there are so many problems with the elements of today, with droughts, floods, earthquakes, and tornados hitting in various places. To us the sun still shines, the water still flows, and the grass still grows. Therefore, we still have the treaty agreement to be fulfilled by the Canadian government and its government people.

Our great Chief Jacob Bearspaw was one of the ones who signed a treaty for his people, but when he did it was with the approval of his people. When Mr. Nault comments on self-government, it is not with our treaty rights in mind, yet it has everything to do with them. Everything that has to do with our government is connected to the treaty self-government. It does not protect the rights or lands of the Stoney tradition.

The Chair: You'll have to conclude. We're well over the time.

Mr. David Daniels: Okay.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I now invite Terry Daniels to make his presentation.

» (1730)

Ms. Terry Daniels (Individual Presentation):

[Witness speaks in her native language].

I'd like to thank the people for allowing me to speak. I'm a Stoney First Nation member of the Bearspaw Band of the Stoney Reserve. My band number is 1026. I'm a treaty Indian and I've lived on the reserve all my life. My children continue to live on the reserve also, and their children.

They're talking about respect, and in the conversation they talked about rights. As long as we live on the reservation, we will not accept this change to our Treaty 7. Treaty 7 represents me--who I am, my identity, my culture, my traditions, and where I come from. I will never sign a paper, nor will my children, nor my elders, as I speak for them.

It also brought up in my mind the word “trust”. I think the big issue here is trust. A long time ago our grandfathers raised us up with the word “trust”. I think today that's a major issue with the wasêjus and the first nation leaders. There is no rapport built, or there's no trust between these two parties or these two nations.

If we accept this, where would we get our money from? Where would we get our funds from? We're not even considered a municipality. We're not even considered a town, or a city. Where? Who do we go to? We're not ready. We haven't even done our healing journey yet.

I'm a Sioux, and I come from the Sioux people. I really feel we're put onto this Mother Earth to give us a holy pipe. It's a buffalo pipe. She gave us to rely on this pipe and to offer trust with that pipe. Obviously, when that pipe was given, there was no trust there. I find that a big issue with government and native leaders. I would keep asking why.

We're here today as Indian people. We won't go away. We will be here forever, and we're growing too in population. We need to start listening to each other, be kind to each other. We have to listen to the pipe, what it's telling us.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We invite now Percy Potts. You have two minutes.

Mr. Percy Potts (Individual Presentation): Mr. Chairman, I want to say welcome. This is an opportunity where you honour me to ask me to come up and say a few words.

I live off reserve. I don't live on the Indian reserve. I'm aware of the difficulties that exist outside of a reserve, living within the system as it is. I do not fault the white man for our problems. I find that the system that is coming against us, you're a part of, that's all. Other races have been overtaken by the system that is here now. We've been subjected to that system by the policies of the Department of Indian Affairs, law, and religion. Those three things were used against us to undermine me as a human being in this country.

I find that the dysfunction we are in today is a result of somebody not listening. It wasn't us, and it isn't you who are sitting around here. I think it's been over time, so I hold no fault with you as another human being. In fact, I feel sorry for the job you've been given, being sent out by someone who did not take the time that was necessary to sit down with us and straighten this whole thing out, then start a process, and invite us to the table, where we could be equal partners.

We have vast numbers of suicides in our communities, a lot of social dysfunction. That's a direct result of what's going on today. We have a lot of heartache, a lot of pain, but we are working on trying to get ourselves back onto that place where the Creator identified who we are. We seek the help that's necessary for that.

I don't subject myself to this process. I come here as an equal to you. I stand in the power the Creator gave me, the power the Creator gave you. I hope the best for you and your family in this process. When you go home, I hope your homefires will be well. I want to thank you very much for this time.

The last thing I want to say before I go is this. The collective will expressed in the treaty is what's being violated. The Minister of Indian Affairs has gone outside of that expressed will of the treaty and appealed to the individual rights that are there to off-reserve members. They have reacted to that, because right now the way it is our forms of government have never been recognized. I am a sundance-maker, and when I go into the sundance I give myself over to the policy, the religion, and the law of that ceremony. If we use those kinds of ceremonies to address this issue the minister is contending with, we could solve that on an equal basis, not as being subjected to a process.

» (1735)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I want to thank everyone for a very constructive and valuable day. We started our public hearings with a ceremony of blessing, and it paid off, because it was a worthwhile day. I hope the next four weeks are as precious as today was. We thank you very much.

We will adjourn until tomorrow morning at eight o'clock.