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

Tuesday, February 25, 2003

0810

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

Ms. Carole Sanderson (Senator, Women's Commission of the Prince Albert Grand Council)

0815

0820

0825

The Chair

Ms. Carole Sanderson

0830

The Chair

Ms. Carole Sanderson

The Chair

Ms. Carole Sanderson

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Alfred Billette (Buffalo River Dene Nation)

0855

0900

The Chair

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

The Chair

Ms. Celine Catarat (Buffalo River Dene Nation)

The Chair

Ms. Celine Catarat

0905

0910

The Chair

Mr. Allan Adam (Dene Interpreter, Buffalo River Dene Nation)

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Ms. Celine Catarat

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Ms. Celine Catarat

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Alfred Billette

0915

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Alfred Billette

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Alfred Billette

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Alfred Billette

0920

The Chair

Ms. Celine Catarat

The Chair

Chief Calvin Sanderson (Chakastaypasin Band of the Cree Nation)

The Chair

Mr. Sol Sanderson (Chakastaypasin Band of the Cree Nation)

0925

0930

0935

0940

The Chair

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

The Chair

Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, Lib.)

0945

Mr. Sol Sanderson

Mr. Rick Laliberte

The Chair

Mr. Sol Sanderson

0950

The Chair

Mr. Sol Sanderson

The Chair

Mr. Sol Sanderson

The Chair

Chief Marcel Head (Shoal Lake Cree Nation)

0955

1000

1005

1010

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief Marcel Head

1015

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief Marcel Head

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief Marcel Head

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief Marcel Head

The Chair

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

The Chair

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell

Chief Marcel Head

1020

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell

Chief Marcel Head

The Chair

Mr. Rick Laliberte

Chief Marcel Head

The Chair

1025

Chief Walter Constant (James Smith Cree Nation)

1030

1035

The Chair

Mr. Isaac Daniels (Elder, James Smith Cree Nation)

1040

1045

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Chief Walter Constant

1050

The Chair

Mr. Isaac Daniels

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

1055

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

The Chair

Mr. Isaac Daniels

The Chair

Mr. Isaac Daniels

The Chair

Mr. Isaac Daniels

The Chair

Mr. Isaac Daniels

The Chair

1100

Mr. Isaac Daniels

The Chair

Mr. Isaac Daniels

The Chair

Chief Earl Ermine (Sturgeon Lake First Nation)

1105

1110

1115

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

1120

Chief Earl Ermine

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief Earl Ermine

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief Earl Ermine

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief Earl Ermine

1125

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Chief Earl Ermine

Mr. Pat Martin

Chief Earl Ermine

Mr. Pat Martin

1130

The Chair

Chief Earl Ermine

The Chair

Ms. Florence McLeod (As Individual)

The Chair

1135

Ms. Florence McLeod

The Chair

Ms. Florence McLeod

The Chair

Ms. Celina Ballentine (As Individual)

The Chair

Mr. Marco Thériault (As Individual)

1140

The Chair

Mr. Marco Thériault

The Chair

Mr. Wesley Daniels (As Individual)

1145

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources

NUMBER 037

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, February 25, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¾ (0810)

[English]

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

We're pleased to welcome this morning from the Women's Commission of the Prince Albert Grand Council, Chair Shirley Henderson, and Carole Sanderson. And you will introduce to us your third colleague when you make your presentation.

We have 20 minutes together. We invite you to make a presentation, and if you allow us time we will ask you some questions.

Please proceed.

Ms. Carole Sanderson (Senator, Women's Commission of the Prince Albert Grand Council): set-up

[Witness speaks in her native language]

I bring you greetings from our nations. Thank you for coming to northern Saskatchewan to hear our voices.

Let me open my remarks by saying that I am in no way, shape, or form supporting or endorsing Bill C-7. It is with very mixed emotions that I sit at this table. I come to this table not because I want to, but I have grandchildren and I want to ensure their future.

I come to this table with a sense of frustration, despair, and anger. It is also with respect for you that I will be candid and direct in my comments.

Why am I angry?

I take great offence that my national chief, my regional chief, and my chief from the Prince Albert band council have to come to this table to address issues of great concern. Just like you, they have had to put their lives on hold to serve us as first nation citizens.

May I also add that my duly elected and capable leaders should be sitting at bilateral tables addressing our issues with common understanding with our treaty partners, on a nation-to-nation basis, on a government-to-government basis, but we have given them little choice, for they have to represent us at all fora.

I say “you” because you represent Parliament. Parliament has acknowledged and recognized our inherent rights and our treaty rights in the supreme law of the land, the Constitution Act of 1982.

Why am I at this pseudo table?

I do not come before you to authenticate, to validate, or to legitimize this process. I come before you with a lifelong experience, having worked in the area of education in excess of 30 years, to attain jurisdiction, self-rule in our affairs. That stands in complete opposition to Bill C-7.

I know that each and every one of you has good intentions. I thank you for that, but good intentions will not ensure the future of my grandchildren and the children of tomorrow--your grandchildren too.

¾ (0815)

Paternalistic measures will not cut it either. The status quo is unacceptable. Systemic change is desirable; we cannot remain stationary. However, change cannot be made unilaterally. Also, the window of change in this exercise is too narrow and too selective.

Ladies and gentlemen, you need my leaders on board. Otherwise there will be no ownership in this crucial and critical paradigm shift. Nations all strive for good governance. And we as first nations are no exception. In our treaty making, we agreed with our treaty partners, and I quote, “that we would have peace, order, and good government”. That is a quote from Treaty 6. We agreed with our treaty partners, with our respective democracies, that we would work with you, the newcomers.

I know I don't have much time, and I also know that I come from a way back. Today I just want to very quickly reflect on what transpired 33 years ago in relation to the topic we have today.

In 1969 I witnessed the launching of the 1969 white paper, the policy that was to extinguish our special and unique status in this country. There were four main principles to the paper.

Number one was to terminate once and for all the treaties and the treaty rights, which we believe to be sacred, binding, living, and lasting agreements. Canada has a treaty with the United States called the free trade agreement. They would not break those treaties; otherwise there would be consequences. But there was no trouble breaking our treaties time and time again.

Second was to terminate the fiduciary responsibility by transferring it to the provinces--this is 1969 I'm talking about. Another was to eliminate the Indian Act and gradually abolish the Indian reserves, reducing some to municipalities.

What did this mean to me then? Wholesale assimilation to make me into something I could never be nor want to be, and that is a European with foreign values, a foreign culture.

To me this was cultural genocide in the most blatant form. Another word that came to me was betrayal--betrayal by Canada, deception from a body that was to protect my collective rights.

¾ (0820)

Who were the players? Think about it. Who were the players then? The late Prime Minister Trudeau was one. And who was their point man? It was the Minister of Indian Affairs, our current Prime Minister.

There were other things that happened in between, before I go into comparing them. We had the 1980 “buffalo jump” under Erik Neilsen. That was exactly what it was, a buffalo jump; you jump and you're finished. That meant my rights and my children's rights.

In 1981 there were formal discussions to begin the patriation of the Constitution. Again, who was the point man? It was Chrétien, who is now our Prime Minister.

Ladies and gentlemen, I say these things not to hurt people. I am just bringing my experience to this table.

Lord Denning, a British jurist, told Canada then it has a moral obligation to recognize the aboriginal peoples of Canada.

In 1982, the World Assembly of First Nations was hosted by Saskatchewan. This was to bring our issues to the world stage, prior to patriation.

In 1982, our leaders in Canada signed a declaration of first nations.

In 1984 we had the Penner report, a parliamentary report on self-government, recognizing that first nations have the power and jurisdiction appropriate to a distinct order of government. Where is that? It's gathering dust.

I will leave the others.

In 1981-82 we saw the death of Meech Lake in Charlottetown. Other occurrences that happened over the last few years are the recent Supreme Court pronouncements, which support our inherent and treaty rights: the Corbier case, the Marshall case, Delgamuukw, Benoit, Guerin, Sparrow. These are Supreme Court decisions. They are your laws; they are my laws.

In 1997, it was “Gathering Strength”.

I believe it is important that you see the pattern over the years. It is consistent in diminishing the inherited treaty rights of first nations in a calculated and methodical way. The First Nations Governance Act is being marketed in a very professional manner, with state-of-the-art technology and a dazzlingly glossy display of handouts. The public campaign is smooth, slick, and saleable to the general public and to our detractors.

We have pointed to and demonized Minister Nault. My take on this is that the attack should be directed at cabinet, at the Prime Minster, including the official opposition, whose silence is deafening.

¾ (0825)

Minister Nault's agenda is one that started in 1969. This will be the legacy of our current Prime Minister.

I have given very careful thought about the proposed and selected revisions. The questions I ask I am personally grappling with. Is this self-determination or self-termination? Why is this legislation not flowing from the Constitution Act of 1982? Why are the chiefs' positions not incorporated in this new legislative reform? How will the order of the Crown be upheld? Is this the final solution to the Indian problem?

Very quickly, I will now compare what happened in 1969 as I see it. This is from my Indian upbringing, through my “Indian glasses”.

The Chair: I will only interrupt for a short second. There are three minutes left, so there won't be time for questions and we will keep to the schedule. But the time is yours. You may continue.

Ms. Carole Sanderson: I will take my time. I need to say what I need to say.

What I see happening since 1969 is an attempt to change our legal status to that of corporate entity, opening the doors to land allotment. And you know that our way of thinking about land is so different from yours. Our land is held collectively. It's not for sale. You don't sell your mother. We consider our land the mother who gives us everything, food and everything else, the animals and so on.

A second thing I see happening is to make municipalities of us, which derive power from external governments, and thus giving up our nationhood, our sovereignty, and the bilateral relationship with the Crown. Other things follow from these: making our land collateral for banks and institutions; accepting delegation for authority from another government; assuming the Crown trust responsibility, the fiduciary responsibility; embracing accountability, transparency, and inclusiveness--and I have absolutely no qualms with this principle, but we can do it without legislative reform. We can do it today.

Accountability is an overused word. Within the three orders of government, accountability also works both ways. The province has received transfer payments on our behalf; it has never accounted to my leadership. It has built facilities off the reserve with state-of-the-art gymnasiums, with beautiful buildings, without consulting my leaders. So accountability works two ways.

The Auditor General gave a scathing report to the Department of Indian Affairs with regard to its inability to account for its funding. I chuckle about this one because--

¾ (0830)

The Chair: I'll have to ask you to conclude now.

Ms. Carole Sanderson: --they should be under third-party management.

The Chair: Your time has elapsed. We have completed this--

Ms. Carole Sanderson: In closing, if I have offended anybody, that was not my purpose. I will now entertain any questions.

The Chair: There will be no time for questions. We appreciate your ten-minute history. It was very informative and it will be of assistance to us. Thank you very much.

I now invite to the table, from the Black Lake Indian Band, Chief Victor Echodh.

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Chair, on a point of order, I'm not sure if the next guest is here, and there have been some cancellations. I wonder if Ms. Sanderson would--

The Chair: No, you know the rules. You know the answer to that. We cannot come to Saskatchewan and change the rules. We've been rigid in two provinces. I don't want to be accused, at the end, of making the rules as I go. You know that. You've been with us, and we've asked this before.

Mr. Pat Martin: Well, Mr. Chair, the only reason I make this point is because—

The Chair: Is there anyone else in the room who is scheduled to present today?

We'll suspend until 9 o'clock.

¾ (0833)

¾ (0850)

The Chair: We will resume proceedings.

We are pleased to welcome to the table, from the Buffalo River Dene Nation, Celine Catarat, Alfred Billette, and an interpreter, Allan Adam.

We have 30 minutes together. We invite you to make your presentation, whatever way you choose to do it, and if you allow time, we will ask our members to ask questions of you.

Please proceed.

Mr. Alfred Billette (Buffalo River Dene Nation): I'm glad to be here with you this morning--all the people, the Dene, as well as the non-Dene people--to discuss some important matters. That's why I'm here today.

From the time of initial contact, in terms of treaties, and so forth, the different bodies of legislation that were imposed upon us were a great hindrance to our people, and these were some of the things that basically put us down to where we're at today, a piece of legislation that controls our way of life from the time we're born to the day we die.

A good example right now that I'd like to refer to is where we live on reserves. The reserves are basically pieces of land put aside for us to live on, and that's it.

A good example on the reserve is our homes. Our homes are provided for us, but we have no control over what we can do with our homes, as well as ownership and so forth. These things that are supposed to be there to help us aren't there, because of government policy and legislation and so forth under the Indian Act.

The proposal in front of us now, in terms of the standing committee, is something that is hard for us to observe as well.

Our idea is to look at factors in terms of how we can self-determine our lives and the future from here onward.

We came into treaty with the federal Crown. One of the people who signed the treaty on our behalf was one of my great-grandfathers. I am a direct descendant of that individual. His dream was to establish an area where we could live free, as we've always lived, on our land. And this is what we'd like to see, through the establishment of constitutions, through the establishment of proper mechanisms, to ensure that when it does come to self-control and so forth, that it be done by us, for us.

A good example of the effects of government policy and legislation, even on my family, is something I'd like to present at this time. When my father took treaty, he was recognized as a treaty individual, an individual with status, rights, and so forth.

¾ (0855)

On the other hand, his brothers and sisters, some of the other brothers and sisters, were not enlisted in that same process and thus were recognized, and their descendants are now recognized, only as Métis and non-status Indians. So just the legislation itself, our policies, regulations, or whatever, split our family up as well, as to how we are classified as individuals.

So the agreement was as long as the sun shines, the rivers flow, and so forth. But even within my family I see all of these things that are basically eroding treaties, from what I understand treaties to mean. For instance, I just pointed out the example of how my family became broken up because of how they were put on a list--one side treaty, one side non-treaty.

The descendants of these individuals are feeling the effects as well. They long for and want to be what they should have been, which is treaty. They want to be able to see legislation that would protect their rights again as long as the sun shines, the rivers flow, and the grass grows, as an example.

I have a question with relation to sharing our resources and so forth. The resource component, from our understanding, was not extinguished to any degree. Sharing of resources in terms of sharing was a strong component of treaty, and it was based on those types of things that our people did initially get into treaty, but now we see all of the resource extractors, the forestry companies and so forth, coming to our traditional territory, extracting all the resources, taking everything, and providing a lot of benefits to other people, outsiders and so forth, to take all of these resources from our traditional territory. And we, the most affected individuals from that area, did not derive the benefits we would like to have derived from such an agreement, as the treaty we are now into.

So even Bill C-31 is affecting us today. How did the imposition upon us of Bill C-31 come to be, and how is it affecting us, is a question that I'd like to raise at this point as well.

Even, for example, hunting. Some of our people were charged for hunting within a bombing range just west of our community. We've been into that process five years now. How much longer are we going to argue for our rights?

I see the disintegration of our treaties on a daily basis through the classification of different groupings of people, the Métis, treaty and non-treaty, and so forth. This is basically disintegrating our treaties.

¿ (0900)

So again, my point is that self-determination can only be done by the people for the people. I am not speaking against the process that is here today, the standing committee. I believe that if these types of things are going to be done for our people in terms of how we are going to self-determine our futures and so forth, it has to be done by our people, the elders, the leaders, all the affected individuals who would like to move these issues ahead so that we don't come to impasses and changes in even our benefits, our rights that we derive through treaty, such as health benefits and other benefits, like prescription glasses and so forth. Once you get to a certain age and you become a senior, over 65 years old, you have to start paying for your personal things again, and we see that as an erosion of treaty. For example, I paid $300 for my glasses. These were the types of things that were supposed to be a part of treaty as benefits from treaty.

Again, my points are going to be brief. I hope the information I shared with you is something you will absorb. I hope you will be able to come to some sort of decision on some of the points I did make, and I thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak this morning.

The Chair: Thank you very much. It is very interesting, and it's good for us now to have translation through your language, the language of your first nation people. We are accustomed to the other languages, but it was a good experience. Your information is from the heart and it will be helpful.

For a four-minute round, Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance): So Mrs. Catarat is going later, or what is the scenario here?

The Chair: Does Mrs. Catarat have a presentation also?

Ms. Celine Catarat (Buffalo River Dene Nation): Yes.

The Chair: I see. It's your time. I apologize.

Thank you, Mr. Vellacott.

Ms. Celine Catarat: Good morning, everybody. Last night when we pulled in we checked into the PA inn. We were coming for a big meeting over here and we checked to see what we had for accommodations, but there was nothing for our room and our expenses. That's somewhat dismaying, but it's nothing new for us. We have experienced this problem and situation in the past.

As for the Buffalo River Band, we are into a constitution development for our community, and there's a lot of planning and new things going on right now. For instance, we're talking about setting up our own system where we can do things for ourselves. A lot of times in the past we did have problems in the working relationship between the first nations and the government of the country.

I think my presentation will be about a good working relationship between first nations people and the Government of Canada. A lot of times we have run into misguidance and problems, blaming, saying it's this person's fault that these things are happening. We did not understand. We have our own culture and we speak our own language. I think it's time people started working together, first nations people and the government. If we voice our concern and we let each other know where we are, I think we will have a good working committee between the first nations and the government.

So far right now we are trying to do things whereby we understand what we want to do for our community and the first nations people. The leadership at the community level would have a greater understanding if we had a lot of meetings together and set up laws, or whatever we needed, for our community.

In the past the government seemed to set up laws on their own that were hard for us to understand, and then the first nations tried to ask for things, and then, because we have different working atmospheres and we had no meetings together, people ended up fighting and blaming one another. I think it's now the time when we can work together and start doing things together.

For the first nation people I think we need to have this confidence set in place with the outside government. Outside resources are important to us too, because sometimes at the band level our leadership needs that guidance and our leadership needs to understand that we have to have this working relationship together. I feel the trustee of our financial management and administration at the band level is very important, because the moneys that do come in are for our education, for our health, and our governing systems at the band level.

So yes, we do not understand the First Nations Governance Act. It's a new thing, it's being introduced to us, and let's study these things together and have a good working relationship together.

¿ (0905)

I know a lot of things happened in the past. We're blaming a lot of things that happened in our own communities on outside resources. We keep saying that, but it's time we started accepting one another and living together in a good healthy lifestyle.

I think we accepted a lot of other ways, because we accepted education and other things like language. We speak English now. I also speak my mother tongue, and I don't think I'm ever going to leave that. But I also know that our ways are beautiful too. We live with nature and the people still live off the land. We would like people to understand that is our way and to accept us as we are. That's one of the important things for us. Healing and wellness are also an important part of our community of Buffalo River.

That's my presentation this morning to this standing committee. It's high time we all started working together, understanding one another and where we're all coming from, and setting up a good healthy lifestyle for everybody.

Thank you.

¿ (0910)

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

Mr. Allan Adam (Dene Interpreter, Buffalo River Dene Nation): Yes. That's the presentation. Do you have any questions?

The Chair: We will open it up for questions. We thank you very much for an excellent presentation.

We have ten minutes. Colleagues, do you want me to do a quick complete round, or do you want me to go to two parties at five minutes each?

Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I'm okay with that. I don't want to exclude the other---

The Chair: The next time I'll make it up to the Liberals.

Mr. Vellacott is next for five minutes.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Celine, did your band have the opportunity to read, study, and discuss the good or bad points of Bill C-7?

Ms. Celine Catarat: We do have a CDC committee in place right now. We went through some of the stuff in here. We're just reading through it right now as a committee. We had some discussions. It could be a good thing too, but I think the committee would like us to go through it together.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Right. So you still have to come to conclusions on where you stand on it, but you haven't fully made up your mind. There may be some good things and some things that cause major concern for you. Am I understanding you correctly that you're not sure yet?

Ms. Celine Catarat: Right now we're just going through it. We're not accepting it or disagreeing with it.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Okay. So let me ask you about some things in your community in terms of a band code for leadership. You mentioned the need for finances for education and the different things the band needs.

Do you have some written band code for leadership selection, financial management and accountability, and administration of the band government? Do you have some of those things written down, Alfred and Celine?

Mr. Alfred Billette (Interpretation): The big stickler is that the process is imposed on us. That's our main objection.

From our standpoint, if the elders, leaders, and so forth are going to develop legislative tools to work with on behalf of their people, they're going to have to do it themselves.

Our main point is we don't want things to be imposed on us, but if these are the things we're going toward, we want to develop them ourselves for our people.

¿ (0915)

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: It has been raised by a number of the groups that if there were a non-derogation clause to reassure you that this wouldn't impinge on treaties or have any negative impact there at all, it would be reassuring. It would alleviate some of the concerns.

Do you share that view? Would a non-derogation clause be important for you?

Mr. Alfred Billette (Interpretation): Again, it has to be something we develop and agree to in our language as a working tool for our people. It has to be developed from the bottom up by the people, for the people, and with the people. That's the point I want to reiterate.

The Chair: Mr. Martin.

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

Thank you for a very interesting brief. It was very nice to hear from you in your first language. It was interesting for all of us.

These are the most comprehensive changes to the Indian Act for this whole generation. According to the government's timetable, it will be pushed through by June of this year. It will be law.

Do you think that's enough time for your people to assess it, review it, study it, and make recommendations? Do you think the government should step back, slow down, and do this properly?

Mr. Alfred Billette (Interpretation): Again, we don't want our heads to be covered any more by any imposed legislation. If people are going to get involved to any degree in processes such as this, they have to be equal participants. Their derived information has to be presented as equal information and no less.

Mr. Pat Martin: My second question is on the nuts and bolts of the financing. You made the point that there was no financing for you to come to make this presentation, and there was no financing available for you to do an in-depth analysis of this bill. Can you speak to how necessary it is to be given the resources to deal with this very complex piece of legislation?

Mr. Alfred Billette (Interpretation): Piecemealing doesn't work on our behalf. The scraps and the little things that have fallen through the cracks are not adequate resources to do a good job on behalf of our people on important matters such as this. As well, the resources to provide even things like housing for our communities are not adequate. The piecemeal approach to trying to help the people just doesn't work for us. We can't do a good enough job for our people without adequate resources.

¿ (0920)

The Chair: Ms. Catarat.

Ms. Celine Catarat: We had no funds at the band level to come to give a presentation here. Our understanding was that our travelling expenses, meals, and rooms would be paid for by the standing committee--all the expenses for our presentation here.

If we're going to have meetings and do things together, we need financial support so we can work together and negotiate on a good working level for the band and the government. If that's going to happen in the future, the financial part is a very important part of whatever we have to do together. At the band level we don't have funding for anything like this right now.

The Chair: Thank you very much. That completes the time we have for this presentation. We enjoyed your presentation very much and it will be helpful.

We now invite, from the Chakastaypasin Band of the Cree Nation, Chief Calvin Sanderson, and Sol Sanderson.

We have 30 minutes together. We invite you to make your presentation.

Chief Calvin Sanderson (Chakastaypasin Band of the Cree Nation): Good morning. I'm Chief Calvin Sanderson of the Chakastaypasin Band of the Cree Nation.

This morning I want to let Sol make the presentation to the standing committee. I think his presentation will take at least half an hour.

The Chair: Take your time.

Mr. Sol Sanderson (Chakastaypasin Band of the Cree Nation): Thank you, Chief, and good morning to all of you.

Mr. Chairman, I have some handouts. These were put together by us over a number of years in refining the strategy that needs to be examined. Mr. Martin, you will have had copies of these at the finance committee meeting. I don't know if you went through them, but I hope you did because they're fairly expensive in terms of production. We have no money for it; it comes out of my own pocket and from those who are participating.

What I want to do, Mr. Chairman, is not to examine this legislation point by point. At the stage you're at now you can examine the principles governing the legislation and the authorities that are in place respecting legislation. In your kit you have a document like this. I'd ask you to turn to a chart on page 1 that addresses the existing framework that governs sovereignty and treaty relations between first nations and Canada. What I want to do is take you to the post-1982 implementation strategies. I don't think there's enough emphasis on that, and there's a little understanding that needs to come about on both sides.

When we look at new legislation or amending legislation, this is the framework that governs the relationship between first nations and Canada today. We are afraid to discuss first nations sovereignty because many of the parties in the house don't accept it, including the current government. The processes that are out there are failing because there's a resistance to recognizing the first nations justice systems and legal frameworks.

When we look at the framework that's there, there is the recognition of the sovereignty of first nations by the treaties and by the Royal Proclamation of 1763--which is your instrument, not ours--and that continues to apply today.

In terms of the recognition, you can go on to examine the recognition. It recognizes inherent rights and title. It recognizes the treaties and treaty rights, and we have the Royal Proclamation of 1763 continuing to apply, with the Supreme Court now making some decisions on the implementation strategies.

The Constitution Act of 1982: I was there, Mr. Chairman, during the whole struggle. Again, we worked with no money a lot of the time. A lot of our groups benefited from that strategy and that implementation. We had several disputes internally and nationally respecting sections 25 and 35, but they're there now and they govern this committee. They govern Parliament, they govern opposition parties, and they govern the current federal government.

If you go to the next page, on the back of that chart you will see the recognition in some detail, and it spells out what is currently recognized by that framework, including political relations, treaty relations, judicial relations, economic relations, fiscal relations, international relations, and bilateral relations.

When we look at the powers that are there and recognized under the BNA Act, we know that the division of powers of the feds is there respecting section 91. Section 92 deals with the division of powers for the provincial governments, and section 35 recognizes the division of powers for first nations governments. It provides the legal and political capacity of the federal government to recognize that.

Now, when we look at section 35 powers, we're talking about first nations inherent rights and powers to determine our own form of government, our own justice system, our own legal system, our own laws governing citizenship and membership, and indeed all our internal, external, and international affairs. The document on that page details the recognition that's there.

When we talk about the recognition of political relations, it means the equality of government, law, jurisdiction, and courts. Now, that's not new. You already have that established with respect to the French Civil Code in the province of Quebec to have a French legal system, while in the rest of Canada you have English common law, known as the English legal system. For the U.S. they have tribal, state, and federal law respecting the equality of jurisdiction, law, and courts, and I'm saying you have the equality of governments recognized there as well.

When I talk about equality, I'm not talking about equality of all Canadians under one law for Canada. I'm talking about the equality that relates to the recognition of our relationship by treaty and under the Constitution and the proclamation respecting the equality of government, jurisdiction, law, and courts.

¿ (0925)

Treaty relations recognize our treaty-making powers. Treaties 1 to 11 are one major treaty between Canada and first nations. It wasn't a separate treaty process. All the articles of Treaty 1 apply to all the numbered treaties from 1 to 11. You made that decision in making the treaties with us. Your courts have made that decision, except recently I have seen a trend that's developing where if we lose a court case, it applies to all of us, from Treaty 1 to 11; if we win it, it only applies to one treaty area--a typical colonial system of governing.

Now, we need major changes to the Canadian system. The political structure and institutions of Canada have to change, including this process. The legal structure and the institutions of Canada have to change. When we talk about judicial relations, we're talking about our own justice systems, our own legal systems as first nations.

As I said, if you don't understand that process, then visit the U.S. to look at the tribal justice system, the federal justice system, and the state justice system. They've gone so far to accommodate the cross-referencing of jurisdictions and authorities for their justice system to the point where, when the tribe passes child and family services legislation under tribal law, Congress has legislated and instructed the state and federal judicial systems to recognize the tribal law as applying.

When we talk about inherent rights, it's no mystery to us: we inherit them from the creator. We inherit them from generation to generation, and we have duties and responsibilities associated with each of those inherent rights. There's a chart in there that identifies a listing of those inherent rights. Our task as first nations people is to identify and give definition to those inherent rights. We don't want to leave it to your courts, and that was not the intent in 1982, other than what was the federal government's agenda.

With respect to implementation strategies for the first nations economy, the framework accommodates the recognition of a first nations economy. We can't be going from crisis to crisis regarding sector developments in forestry, fisheries, and so on, which is going on now, Mr. Chairman. That's one hell of an expensive process. We're in court all the time on all these issues.

I don't want to say it, but this suite of legislation that is being proposed by the minister and the federal government will result in thousands more court cases--not hundreds of court cases, but thousands of court cases. Why? Because it violates the treaties, it violates the inherent rights and powers we have, and it's unconstitutional.

When we look at this framework applying, then, there's room for a first nations economy that scopes out our plans, our strategies, and our laws governing a first nations economy by sector.

When we talk about the implementation of the fiscal relations arrangements, we as first nations leaders take a hell of a bashing in the media and the political arena without there being any understanding of fundamental principles of fiscal relations. It's the year 2003--and welcome to the year 2003--but we don't have first nations budgets. One of the fundamental principles of fiscal accountability is to have our own budgets. What you call our budget is the allocations you provide to us. Those aren't budgets. Those are simple allocations, pre-determined conditions, with no control by us. We want to put in place a process that deals with first nations-Canada fiscal relations that provides for stability and certainty and gets rid of the jurisdictional disputes between federal departments and agencies.

Parliament now appropriates moneys for 33 federal departments and agencies. The provincial government has 27 provincial departments and agencies that provide services. You have 60 federal and provincial departments and agencies that are supposed to be providing moneys and services to Indians on and off reserve. In this province we have over 400 organizations receiving Indian moneys to provide services to off-reserve Indians, but you can't get any services.

We look at the fiscal relations, and it means fiscal accountability on our terms and arguing processes on our terms through our laws and policies. Some presenters have already spoken to that. We need to have our own fiscal system in place that includes our departments of finance and revenue, with independent funding such as you have.

On the international relations, the global community impacts on us; the global community of global transportation, communications, politics, economics, financing, you name it, it affects us. The free trade agreement has only one clause in it saying that Canada reserves the right to deal with aboriginal international trade. Well, we need a strategy that deals with the recognition of first nations international relations, including trade and commerce.

¿ (0930)

The process in place now on consultation is very weak. It's not very productive, and it's as costly as hell. We need to formalize those bilateral relations that are recognized by the treaties and the Royal Proclamation of 1763 between first nations governments and the federal government and Parliament.

On new institutions federally to implement this, if you go to the centre of the document, you will find that there are recommendations representing the institutions that have to be looked at on a longer term, on a broader base. You can find that on page 8. Page 9 looks at a ministry of state of first nations, because this framework affects all federal departments and agencies and central agencies, including these committees.

So how do we deal with that? We're suggesting that there be a first nations ministry of state that's at the level of the prime minister's office or the deputy prime minister. We have no secretariat. The Privy Council will deal with first nations national policy issues. We are talking about integrating our processes. You are talking with provinces to integrate our processes respecting services.

The ministry of state would include six functions under a federal trust centre, for lack of a better term--political relations, treaty relations, economic relations, fiscal relations, judicial relations, and international relations. Regulating our relationship, Mr. Chairman, at that level.... We can't continue with these administrative processes we're in. All I see this legislation being, along with the other pieces of legislation, is the administrative law that is going to provide more colonial powers and jurisdiction for non-Indians, and in some cases Indians running the boards or committees.

When we look at the implementation of inherent rights and treaties, if you go to page 4 you will see the process identified respecting the need to implement your obligations respecting treaty rights and inherent rights federally. In that document we speak to the implementation strategy of inherent rights, aboriginal rights, and treaty rights, and the spirit and intent of treaty.

How do we implement inherent rights and treaty rights by sector? How do we implement the spirit and intent of treaty, where you are guaranteed through your commission and your treaty-making process that you will recognize us continuing with our way of life? So we need a traditional and contemporary process in education, a system there, and in all the other sectors, including health and social development.

When we look at the process, then, respecting the principles and the authorities governing our relationships, that, Mr. Chairman, can show you how the existing proposed legislation will impact on the violation of treaties, the violation of inherent rights, and the fact that it's unconstitutional.

The Canada-first nations document you have speaks to the alternatives, Mr. Chairman. I want to refer you to page B-5. It identifies the form of implementation agreements needed for implementing those relationships and those arrangements in the post-1982 strategy. Page C-3 identifies our understanding of the inherent rights or the source of them and what they are. Page D-1 deals more specifically with treaty agreements and the powers the parties to the treaty have, and we want to emphasize that we do have those treaties. They exist already, and we're looking for implementation.

Page E-3 discusses the principles that govern economic relations that are being implemented now in various parts of Canada, including the Inuit in the Northwest Territories and the James Bay Cree through the James Bay Cree-Naskapi Act, and so on. The instructions respecting federal legislation needed to implement that strategy is there, and the instructions respecting first nations law that we need to implement in our first nations economy is there as well.

On page F-3 it's the same thing, the principles governing judicial and legal relations, what is needed federally in terms of constructing new law, and what we need as first nations respecting the construction of law to implement our justice system.

Fiscal relations...the principles there that are already implemented...you use a lot of creativity when it comes to your fiscal arrangements respecting governance and industry and business. That same creativity has to apply to our fiscal relations with Canada and first nations.

¿ (0935)

Again, those principles are all identified as being implemented currently, but not here with us. It identifies a schedule of instruction of law for the federal government and the types of laws and institutions we need as first nations.

One of the institutions we need is a department of finance and revenue. We also need new fiscal agreements. We can't be expected to chase around among 33 federal departments and agencies federally and 27 provincially. We need a new strategy dealing with a larger framework of fiscal agreements that provide for greater certainty and prediction of funding.

So there's an example of the comprehensive general development fiscal relations agreement that could be negotiated and implemented to provide that certainty and the guarantees that are needed.

Regarding chief and headmen, Bill C-7 fails to recognize the office of chief, one of the main heads of state of our government and our nations. And when we talk about funding for chief and headmen salaries, there's a lot of bashing in the media.

There's a chart--G-11--that demonstrates comparability with the dollars that are not there. MPs receive over $1 million a year to maintain them in office. That includes the public works costs for your offices and your facilities, your salaries and benefits. I just heard a presentation on health benefits. You have those benefits in your program, in your funding. That's one of your treaty benefits, I guess. We're talking about the same thing applying to our people. Treaties guaranteed chief and headmen salaries.

We also have identified money that goes to MLAs in the provincial government system and to the members who deal with municipal affairs. In Saskatchewan we have the Assembly of First Nations that we're a party to, the FSIN, and the tribal councils--some bands are independent. As chiefs in council, we are expected to do business with all those areas, every one of them. But there is no money, nor do we have executive staff.

So you want accountability and we want accountability. We want membership accountability respecting the duties and responsibilities associated with Indian inherent rights, individually and collectively. We want political accountability on our terms as first nations leaders, on our political agenda--and this reflects a lot of it.

We want fiscal accountability. Without program accountability being properly addressed with the forms of laws that are needed governing program authority and accountability, no fiscal accountability is possible.

Right now the feds are using and borrowing provincial policies and laws to fit their minimal standards for delivery of services to our people. That's unacceptable. When we look at the budgeting process in the year 2003, we're saying it's time we had acceptable salary grids for first nations people that are passed through Treasury Board and implemented by the federal government, with us having the same capacity to legislate that field.

We have had no increases in band support, employees, for over 10 years. I spoke to that at the parliamentary committee hearing, but I didn't see any changes in that process. We need to address that. There are no chief and headmen salaries, as you perceive there to be. We need that money. We need money for senior and middle management, and there is no money.

I could go on and on with you about the core funding for chief and council; there's been no increase for over 20 years. When we examine your funding as MPs, and we examine your funding for programs and service delivery federally and provincially, we find there's been an average 40% to 45% increase over the last 10 years for everybody--except for us.

So welcome to the year 2003, Mr. Chairman, and the post-1982 implementation strategies. I said I wasn't going to touch on the specific sections of the legislation. If you want to discuss some of them, we can discuss them. But what we're here to do is examine the principles and the authorities governing any new federal legislation or amendments to existing law.

So stop implementing the 1980 buffalo jump, which is a sister policy to the 1969 white paper, the 1947 liquidation plan, and the 1830 de-tribalization policy. Let's look at this whole agenda seriously.

You were asking about funding. There is no funding to do this type of work. We implemented the first nations government specialists training program to train our people in all these areas. But there was a total resistance to funding, because they didn't want our people trained like this, understanding this. But you need the same training.

I apologize if I've offended anybody here. That wasn't the intent. We need to broaden our basis for dealing with these issues and these relationships to understand them more fully.

¿ (0940)

So with that, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your excellent presentation. There's no reason for anyone around this table or anywhere else to be offended. You have made a professional presentation, and we appreciate that.

[Translation]

Would you like the floor for five minutes, Mr. Loubier?

Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): No, I'm fine. The presentation was very clear.

[English]

The Chair: From the Liberal side, do you need five minutes? I can only go to Mr. Laliberte after I ask the others if they want time.

Okay, Mr. Laliberte, five minutes.

Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, Lib.): I think it was a very excellent presentation. I want to touch on Bill C-7.

The first line of the preamble states that the government has powers, but in your definition, from your perspective, what I'd like to ask is, would you concur that before the Government of Canada could have powers in this jurisdiction--this is Treaty 6 that we're sitting on now--treaties had to be recognized, and that at least the preamble of this bill should include that Canada, by treaty, ascertained territories to create this country we call Canada, and then it can say that governments in Canada have the powers? Before Canada could exercise those powers, it had to ascertain the treaty.

In this question, if you look at Bill C-7, there is an absence of terminology in treaty in this bill. Would you recommend to us that this word, this definition, and this clarification of the treaty process be defined here?

¿ (0945)

Mr. Sol Sanderson: The form the legislation takes and the format for the bill is one that I would want to see changed drastically. If we're going to reference the treaty agreements like Treaty 6, then we should reference all of them.

The powers and capacity for the federal government to legislate respecting first nations under treaty are to regulate only in their area of jurisdiction, respecting the implementation of treaty. They're a party to treaty. We're the other party to treaty. To implement and ratify the provisions of treaties, inherent rights and treaty rights, each party is respectfully required to implement, through their own jurisdiction and laws, the implementation of those provisions of treaty and those treaty agreements.

What I see happening here is the feds creeping over into our side of the territory and trying to legislate for us again, and that's not acceptable.

What we need is a clear piece of legislation that scopes out federal legal trust and fiscal obligations by sector, respecting first nations education guaranteed by treaty, health guaranteed by treaty, and so on.

So I don't know how you can fix the bill. I just don't see how it's possible to fix it. I would say scrap it and let's get on with the real agenda.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Another absence in the bill that I would also like you to focus on is that the definition of first nations itself is not included in this bill. But also, much weight is given to this terminology of custom, of selecting leadership by custom, or administration and accountability by custom code.

When reference is made to custom, what's also referred to is what was existing before treaty, that there were governance structures prior to treaty. Those governing structures were based on nations or tribes. When the treaties were negotiated, they were negotiated by bands of those nations and tribes. So should the first nations definition include, in our perspective here in Treaty 6 area, Nehiyawuk, the Cree, as a tribe and nation of Canada, first nations?

We had presenters just before who were of the Dene Nation, but there is no utterance of these nations in that definition, in that perspective. So if we're going to put weight on custom and hereditary and inherent rights of governance, but with reference to an entity that existed, which is the very nations we're discussing.... In the absence of that definition and in the absence of that recognition, how can we word this bill to give it that perspective?

The Chair: That completes the five minutes for Mr. Laliberte.

You have the floor for four minutes. You may address his question or make any comments you wish in closing.

Mr. Sol Sanderson: The Cree Nation spans Labrador, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and the northern states. We are now working through a Cree nations confederacy, to implement the confederacy plans of the Cree Nation. That Cree Nation has signed many treaties across the country, and we will work together to deal with those treaty implementation strategies.

On the matter of incorporating into a new federal law what's required there, Bill C-7 even fails to recognize bands. It changes the entity of bands to municipal-type entities under federal law and jurisdiction. That terminates the party to treaty as far as we are concerned, and that's how it violates another area of treaty. That has to be addressed.

I could respond in terms of the process of nation building with regard to the bands or political units of the Cree nations. You introduced the term “bands”, Mr. Chairman. We never had bands. We had communities and camps of our nations. Our territories were vast and very productive. In fact, our economy was very productive. We were the producers and you were the consumers. I don't want to go into that today.

Mr. Laliberte, I think the questions you pose are again related to that post-1982 strategy for broader-based legislation and dealing with the principles that are there.

¿ (0950)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

You may assist us with language. There are terms I use because I hear the majority use them. They educate me as to what is the proper term. Today I hear you refer to yourself as Indian. I don't do that. I learned that if I do that, it's demeaning. We were chastised because we used the term “aboriginal” in speaking with other presenters. They told us, “We're not aboriginal; we're first nations.” We have all the goodwill in the world to try to do things right. Sometimes we make mistakes, but it's not intended. Its difficult for us too.

Mr. Sol Sanderson: Mr. Chairman, likewise, it's pretty tough for us to decide who is Canadian when we talk about French, English, Orientals, and so on.

The Chair: With two founding nations--

Mr. Sol Sanderson: That's the nature of Canada.

You asked about terminology. That's again an issue we have to address. As first nations we have to decide what that terminology is going to be.

You are talking to the man who created the term “first nations”. Why? We started first nations government in our community in the early 1970s, and people were even afraid to say the words “Indian government”, both Indians and non-Indians alike. Our elders said continue. Within 30 or 40 years everybody will be trying to understand what that is. I created the term “first nations” to bring about the understanding of sovereignty between Canada and first nations. That resistance has been there today on the part of yourselves and many of our own leaders, who are afraid to talk sovereignty and sovereignty relations. But that's why we are here, and we're never going to go away.

In terms of our inherent rights, Mr. Chairman, I'm a Cree. I'm born a Cree and I'm going to be a Cree. I may look like one of you, but I never will be one of you, and I don't want to be one of you. Let's respect that. That's what is to be implemented through the co-existence and the relationship under treaty. In terms of terminology, we went from Cree to Indian to native to aboriginal to indigenous. Somehow we fit into the puzzle. I can understand and appreciate that. That's why I come back to the fact that we as nations have to define those terms and those inherent rights in our own languages.

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

We now invite to the table, from the Shoal Lake Cree Nation, Chief Marcel Head.

Chief Head was scheduled to present at 3:30 this afternoon. Because we are ahead of schedule, he has accepted to present earlier.

Believe me, this will be of benefit to committee members. Yesterday we started at 9 in the morning and we got here at 1:30 the next morning. So we will appreciate it if we could finish half an hour earlier this afternoon.

Chief Head, thank you very much one more time. We invite you to make your presentation. We have 30 minutes together.

Chief Marcel Head (Shoal Lake Cree Nation): Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Welcome again. We previously met in Ottawa.

I certainly welcome this opportunity to make my presentation again, which will be a kind of recap of what we did in Ottawa.

In terms of welcoming you into our territory, the Prince Albert Grand Council would like to welcome every committee member here to Prince Albert. Our office is situated on the west side of the city, and the very hotel you're holding your hearings in is owned by our own tribal council, which represents 12 first nations. Where you're sitting having your hearings this morning and this afternoon is a good example of our economic development.

First of all, after we made our presentation in Ottawa, we came back home and heard rumours that some officials from the department had some concerns about our presentation. Now, it was in no way, shape, or form an attempt to implement or even to agree with the proposed changes to the Indian Act. We still maintain that stand, to oppose the act for the very fact that it's really badly flawed.

In terms of the consultation process that has transpired over the course of the year, I don't think the consultation process can be recognized as a consultation process because it was just a presentation to our people to bring them an update or to inform first nations people in our communities as to what those changes were. As to some of the changes to the legislation, in one of our workshops or during one of our times meeting with officials from the Department of Indian Affairs, it came out that the Indian Act itself is way behind in advancing how we develop our own election codes and accountability measures.

We seriously believe that the minister himself thinks he's doing first nations across the country a favour by introducing these components into the current Indian Act. For instance, election processes in our communities are conducted by way of band custom, and it's been traditionally used by our first nations for as long as I can remember. To say that you're doing first nations a favour by revamping the election process in our communities...well, to our minds it's not true at all. We clearly demonstrated to the officials that this piece of legislation is no way to address the needs of our first nations people.

In terms of the consultation process, I would like to address some of the comments made by our first nations people.

¿ (0955)

They had no intention of discussing election processes, accountability, or legal systems in first nations communities. The subjects they wanted to discuss were the needs that affected them on a daily basis, such as education, health, housing, jobs, economic development for our communities, and even jurisdiction over lands. Those were the issues they wanted to discuss.

But somehow, for some unapparent reason, the officials who did the presentation always came back to the subject at hand, and that was elections and accountability. In terms of the consultation process, I think this piece of legislation has nowhere touched the needs of the people we do represent.

When you look at the consultation and the meetings that were planned without proper consultation with communities or even leaders, we should properly all have agreed to the dates and the times so people could have been available to attend and so information about the meetings could have been distributed in advance. That's something the department failed to do, to give advance warning to our people.

And when it came to discussing the legislation, our people didn't have any idea of what the Indian Act was. Well, in some way I guess it affects them on a daily basis because that's the piece of legislation that currently gives us the ability to administer and provide services to our communities. If proper consultation is to happen, there needs to be a lot of time given to our communities to give them an opportunity to examine the legislation. Maybe then they would have agreed to discuss election processes and accountability, but considering the time allowed, I don't think the proper time was given to them.

In terms of how we conduct our election processes, there was a comment made by one of our elders in Shoal Lake that clearly defines the whole process of election. She said that one day we elect our chief and council and the next day they start working for the Department of Indian Affairs. That's what this piece of legislation is doing.

We're currently being forced by Ottawa or the current government to administer programs and services to our people based on the policies that give them the authority or even the direction for how to administer those programs and services. Right now, particularly in my first nation, we're almost at the point where we're at the level of.... If you're aware of it, there are three levels of intervention. There's one when a band goes under a deficit of 8% of their total annual budget.

À (1000)

We need to go back and seriously look at implementing treaties. And I heard the previous presenter. We need to seriously look at this because this current bill right now does not address treaty rights. It doesn't address inherent rights or anything of the sort.

We currently administer a budget that is nowhere near to properly and effectively servicing our communities, because the levels of funding have not increased. The levels of funding have somewhat decreased in some areas. In our understanding, this current bill was supposed to enhance the lives of our people, but we don't see that process. We can't conceive it.

One of the comments was made by the gentleman sitting right behind me, and this was our own regional director general making the comment that the bill was to save the lives of first nations people. There's only one who can save people and that is God, not bills, not paper.

On some of the comments that have been directed to us, we can't really understand where these people are coming from.

When you look at the bill, how is it going to enhance the lives of first nations people? Even when you look at the bill itself, I don't think it addresses the treaty process. To my understanding it doesn't. Right now we have problems with it because it doesn't address the non-derogation clause. The clause within the bill itself could mean something like nowhere within the legislation will it abrogate or derogate treaty and inherent rights. I don't think that's being addressed in the bill.

The other matter is that we've asked serious questions concerning the bill. One of them was directed, again, to an INAC official. The question was, what compelled the minister to change or even amend the Indian Act? The comment came back along the lines of, because the department...and I don't know if it was a district office or a regional office saying they were receiving 300 calls per week. Out of those 300 calls, there were complaints of mismanagement. The 300 calls didn't agree with the results of the election processes. We question, out of those 300 calls, how many of those were repeated calls? It could have been 20 people. It could have been 10 people making 300 calls. I think those things are very irrelevant to the matter of the bill itself.

Mr. Chairman, on the role, I'd like to go back to the fact that treaties are very important to our people in determining how we define even self-government and the right to determine self-determination. I think that's where we need to address this. Even if there is a new government, I think that's the place where you need to best address the needs of our people.

À (1005)

As we said, the processes contained in the FNGA are not owned by first nations. They do not work for us. The FNGA approach is yet another one of those processes that clearly defines the government's role to control first nations people.

I was driving from Saskatoon to the city here and I was thinking of all the policies we have to live with, controlling us. I think we need to change it around, as the previous presenter said. We need to turn the tables around and start discussing treaties and inherent rights.

So I think, Mr. Chairman, you could do a favour and a benefit to first nations across Canada if you recommend to the current government to start implementing treaties and open section 35 of the Constitution Act. I think that's where our interest is, and I believe it's to the benefit of our people that we do represent this. The Penner report and the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples gave specific guidelines, gave specific directions, to start that process.

So in terms of our presentation, I seriously believe this whole bill needs to be scrapped. We take that position very seriously.

I know you have INAC officials thinking this is a very big joke. Even in one of our meetings right here in this room, an INAC official just passed through the door and said “FNGA”, mockingly. This bill is serious. It affects our people. We don't want to see INAC officials making a mockery out of this, because it's not them whose lives it's going to affect; it's our people who are going to be affected.

In terms of correcting some of the problems, some of the attitudes out there, I think that's something even the minister himself has to address. This is not a joke. This is something very serious.

As I said time and time again--I think I'm repeating myself--it's going to affect our people.

In terms of my presentation, there will be other presenters who will present along the lines of the Prince Albert Grand Council's perspective with regard to this bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

À (1010)

The Chair: I thank you very much.

I can take two five-minute questions. I will offer the first to Monsieur Loubier.

I'll have to split it, because I can't do complete rounds. I'll do my best.

Mr. Vellacott, for five minutes.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: It's good to see you again, Marcel. I appreciate your being here with us today.

As I understand, and I think in somewhat a fair fashion, we've heard from many people in Alberta and B.C., and now coming back to this province again, that what is sometimes termed a “consultation” appeared to be obviously more of an attempt at information sharing, a video and kind of a one-way presentation. My sense of what I've heard is that it was more in that style than really a true two-way input and flow of information.

You mentioned the non-derogation clause, but there is still really considerable opposition to Bill C-7. Would a non-derogation clause have the effect of alleviating enough of your concerns? Would that reassure? If there was no derogation of treaty rights implied by anything in this bill, would that put a lot of your concerns to rest or not?

Chief Marcel Head: I don't believe the current government has the ability to open discussions on the treaties and the implementation of treaties.

But if the current bill is going to be scrapped anyway, I would recommend a non-derogation clause be included in the bill itself. The bill itself does not address treaty rights and inherent rights. That's why some assurance needs to be given to first nations that nothing in the bill will derogate from existing treaty rights and inherent rights. So that's a protection and an assurance to be given to our people.

À (1015)

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Okay. I would agree.

Do I understand you to say you would strongly prefer to stay with the Indian Act, as flawed and problematic as it is, until you have self-government, self-determination agreements arranged, without anything interim or transitional?

Chief Marcel Head: Yes, and I would use the word “temporarily” for the time being, until we get to a point where the government recognizes a process to start a process to implement.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: So you're open to something temporary because you realize it may be a while before you get to that full-fledged self-determination agreement. It could be something temporary or transitional, but not necessarily Bill C-7 or a greatly modified Bill C-7.

Chief Marcel Head: Exactly.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: You also made a comment that there hasn't been an increase in money spent by the department, or at least in money coming through. I think the books show that there's been an increase in money. But I guess the question a lot of us ask--obviously friends and acquaintances I have in first nations communities too--is, where is it? It's there in the figures, but it's getting swallowed up somewhere.

Do you have any comment on that? On the books it looks like there's been an increase; it's one department where the funds have been increasing over time. But where is this money going? How is it getting swallowed up?

Chief Marcel Head: On the increases you're talking about, I don't think they fully address a funding level anywhere near...you have to consider the high inflation rate. The cost of living is very high. I don't think those people down in Ottawa understand the situation in first nations communities.

They do their comparisons against one particular first nation. That's the information we're getting. For instance, take a look at Kanawake, which is a well-advanced first nation community. The charter compared Kanawake to Shoal Lake, and there's a vast difference. I think that's what some of these people don't really understand.

In terms of the funding being consumed elsewhere, we don't really have an answer. You can look at inflation. That's about the only thing we can mention.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I have time for one more five-minute question. I want to know who wants it because it'll take a turn away later on. The circle will be made.

Ms. Karatak-Lindell.

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): I probably won't take the full five minutes.

The Chair: Would you share it with your colleague?

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: You made a comment about not having any real authority to govern as a chief once you're elected. I remember the minister saying that one of the things this legislation would do is take away some of his powers and give them to the people.

I just wonder what your comment would be on the part of this bill that is trying to take away some power from the Minister of Indian Affairs and give it to the people.

Chief Marcel Head: There are two ways I can answer that question, one of them being that the current situation we're in right now is that there is a policy. I think I was referring to a policy stating how we administer programs. Policies dictate to chief and council as to how they administer those programs and services. Right now, we don't have the ability to administer properly the programs we're being funded for.

I think in terms of the policy where a first nation incurs a deficit over the 8%, we are forced to develop a remedial management plan, a debt recovery plan. If we go beyond the 8%, there's another intervention that says there has to be a co-management regime in place. After co-management it's third party. We're almost at that point, so how can we say it gives us the assurances that the minister will give first nations leaders the authority to administer programs in the current situation we are in right now.

I don't think I can feel comfortable in hearing the minister himself saying we will give you the authority, the tools, to govern yourselves. We have some serious feelings about that because in a sense he is saying, we'll give you the authority, but in the other sense he is saying, we'll do it for you. So where is the assurance in that?

À (1020)

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: To take it a little further, some of the other witnesses we have heard from say they are not comfortable the resources will come with the authority. I think this is one of the areas that some chiefs are uncomfortable with, that they will get the authority but not the resources to really carefully and responsibly be able to carry out that authority.

Chief Marcel Head: Right. If we learn, or even if there is clear indication...even the budget that was announced recently--I don't think the budget addressed the current situation we are in. It doesn't meet the needs of the people we represent. Again, we are expecting government to address housing needs, educational needs, post-secondary, health, but I don't think there are really assurances there.

The Chair: Mr. Laliberte, there is one minute left.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I have a question on subclause 5(3). It deals with the time limit for the adoption of custom codes, and at the outset you said your band uses custom. But this time limit says:

A code consisting of custom rules may be adopted only during the period of two years beginning on the coming into force of this section.

The Indian Act has been around for over 100 years, and now we have two years to get our inherent self-government perspectives down to a custom perspective and drafted and passed within a two-year window. Is there concern about that two-year time limit? All this administrative stuff seems to pressure bands to get their old house in order within two years.

Chief Marcel Head: I have no problems with the time limit, because, as I said, I think we're in an advanced situation where we have our custom election act, but it's the bands that are not currently compliant with the proposed changes.... I think it's something that the two years would take into effect, and I think, as I said earlier, the current proposed changes to the justice election act and the election processes are not doing us any favours at all.

I'll repeat that. In essence, we're giving the Indian Act the favour, because I think we've used band custom for as long as I can remember. I think we're there already.

The Chair: Thank you very much. That completes this intervention.

I'd like to know if Chief Pierre Settee from the Cumberland House Cree Nation is in the room. No?

We will now call upon James Smith Cree Nation, Chief Walter Constant.

Chief Constant, welcome. We appreciate your contribution today in accepting our invitation. We invite you to make your presentation, and we also ask that you introduce your colleagues. We are together for 30 minutes.

À (1025)

Chief Walter Constant (James Smith Cree Nation): Thank you.

I welcome you to Prince Albert, to come and listen to our concerns. I have my colleague here, one of my staff, Isaac Daniels. We will be sharing the seat together. If that's all right with you, he will be stepping in on a few things.

First of all, welcome to Prince Albert. I would like to thank Peter Ballantyne for their reserve here.

There are a few things. First of all, maybe I should give you a little history of James Smith. There are three bands in my community of James Smith, which was created a couple of years ago: Chakastaypasin 98, Peter Champman 100, and James Smith. I am the chief of James Smith 100.

Minister Robert Nault came to James Smith on August 2001. He appointed a gentleman by the name of Warren Kinsella to do a report of how these other two bands could be recognized. They are recognized right now as their own chief and council, but they are in my band. It's like me going to your house and staying there for the last 100 years, and when it's my time to watch TV, you want to watch TV. That's how it is over there in my community of James Smith.

At the time of the rebellion, the Chakastaypasin just came to James Smith to camp. There was no amalgamation with James Smith, but somehow they are still here in my community. What gets me is they have the same jurisdiction as I have. We only have one CAD that comes to James Smith and it's under James Smith. It's not under Champman, it's not under Chakastaypasin, but yet the other two bands have the same jurisdiction over the money that's allocated to James Smith.

That report was done. This was done about a year ago, and it's been sitting on Mr. Nault's desk. It must have cost some money to get it done, yet nothing that has been done. I never had any report yet. I have been phoning about it. I talked to the assistant deputy minister and he said it's still sitting on his desk. I'd like some action on it. I don't know if you can do anything about it, but I'd like to see something done about it.

That's a little history of James Smith. Now I'm going to go into some other concerns we have.

My great-great-grandfather was a counsel at the time of signing the treaties. He signed his name and he didn't use an X. If you look at some of the documents of the past, you see how the bands were being treated. You see X by his name and yet he knew how to sign his name.

So there have been quite a few misdeeds down the line in terms of how we have been treated, how the reserves have been treated, for so long.

À (1030)

We're under Treaty 6. We're guaranteed all these things, yet today we see your officials trying to impose some laws onto our community at James Smith. I have a small reserve, it's six by six, and I have a population of 1,200 people, yet in our treaties we're guaranteed so many acres per family. We've outgrown our reserve, James Smith, for the size of our population.

We have our own election act; we're in the band custom. This was passed by Ottawa, yet you find a lot of things. We say I'm supposed to be a chief, yet the department, the federal government, is saying no. We have our own reserve, which we're supposed to run ourselves with your funding, or whatever you call it.

I have a lot of people out in urban centres because of a shortage of housing. As to education, you have facilities over there, but they're not big enough for the community. We have a nursery and schools from kindergarten to grade 12, yet we're short of funds. We cap everything. We cap our education. For how many years now has our education been capped?

If Indian Affairs or your officials were to give the bands the exact money they're entitled to according to the band list, there'd be a lot of bands that wouldn't be under third party. I'm not afraid to say I inherited debt. We're under third party, and with my third-party manager I might as well be talking to this glass of water when I'm telling him to do something for my membership.

It's hard. He doesn't even recognize me as a chief. Who does he talk to? Which chief does he listen to? As I said, there are three chiefs on my reserve, and to get something done you have to get the other chief to sign it. That's when the directive will go through. To me that's bull--pardon my language--but this is happening in my community, James Smith.

We talk about treaties, yet we're losing it. The government is taking it away from us. Look at our medicine chest now. Look at the consent forms we have to sign now with MSB, Medical Services Branch, to get funding. Look at the scandal that happened here. What if that happens with our membership with the consent form we have to sign with MSB? They want everything on that consent form.

And what happened here in Saskatchewan, do you know, with SaskPower and that? What guarantee do we have after we signed that on those things?

We have our membership. We don't control our membership; INAC controls it. We say we're supposed to look after our own membership. We see names there that are added on without our consent. Bill C-31 names were added to our list without our consent. Add them on, all right, but give us their funding, give us their land. That's not being added. That's not being addressed. They're just added onto our list.

À (1035)

Land claims. We talk about land claims. Land claims are capped now, but before they weren't.

Accountability. Yes, I accept accountability, but it must work both ways, for the bands and for Indian Affairs. They have to take responsibility for that too. We approached them at one time saying that things weren't working right, but they turned a deaf ear. They said no, everything's running smoothly out there.

We must not forget that we're under treaties here, under Treaty 6, but somehow we're losing it. We shouldn't be losing it. We should be helping the process of bettering it for our community.

We talk about our urban Indians, and I'm very concerned about them. They're not being helped out the way they were meant to be when they were offloaded to the province. They come back to my band and they ask for help, and it's hard to turn them down, to say no, I can't help you here, the province got your money. Then we'd create a debt. If we give them assistance, if we know they get help from the province yet help them anyway at the reserve level, we won't get reimbursed for what we helped them with from Indian Affairs, and that creates a debt for us.

So that's why it would be good if we gave the bands their whole allotment. Use the membership list to give them what they need, instead of just on-reserve funding. That's all we get.

I'm going to leave some time for my staff member here, Isaac, to say a few words. I don't think we have much time, but I'll leave some time for him.

The Chair: Mr. Daniels.

Mr. Isaac Daniels (Elder, James Smith Cree Nation): Good morning, and thanks, Mr. Chairman, for giving me the privilege to speak on behalf of the James Smith Band. I guess I'm an elder in respect to my age. I'm also a survivor of residential school.

Basically, what I've come here for is to speak from the heart and from the grassroots level of my community. I think Sol already has stated what we want and where we are going.

Going back to the community, I work as a NNADAP worker at the present time, and looking at the people in my community, I see them as dogs on a leash. You know, we start to think about policies, going back to the 1969 white paper. We had a long leash before the signing of treaty. We roamed; we survived. But then we were herded into reservations and signing of the treaties. Our elders' expectations at that time were to be able to still be mobile whenever we wanted to be and to survive in the world.

But today, as I said earlier, we seem to be chained up with policies, and that chain is getting shorter and shorter. As a NNADAP worker I see the consequences of these policies over the years. Our correctional institutions are swarming with a higher percentage of our people, and drugs and alcohol are increasing at the community level. We often question ourselves, why? But it's the federal government implementing policies when they don't know what's happening. In our own grassroots-level communities, they are implementing these policies, saying we'll look after you, we'll take care of you, even though they do not know the consequences.

The chief touched upon a few of the items, like accountability. Yes, we've made mistakes in the past. As a past chief, back in the early eighties, I did make mistakes. I admit that. But don't we all make mistakes? Let's not overlook our own mistakes in order to satisfy our own. I have always maintained that philosophy myself.

I have made mistakes, but what caused those mistakes? I was bitter after residential school. I had bitter feelings toward everybody. It took me a long time to overcome that and heal. I healed myself through the process that I saw fit, through my own culture, my own language, etc.

So that's where I'm coming to you from, and I think basically this is where the policies of the government have made mistakes in trying to streamline first nations people into what they intend them to be--what they cannot be. I think that's a grave mistake the policy-makers made when they looked at first nations people.

As Sol said, maybe the terminology is not first nations, but who knows? I think we are people first, and we should be looked upon as people first, people who have a cultural identity, who have a language. But we seem to have pushed those aside and said here's a policy, you are going to be accountable to everybody, to government and so forth. And I don't think that's fair.

À (1040)

As I said earlier, I could reiterate what Sol said this morning, but I don't want to repeat myself. That's why I come to you, to this table, as a community member who is struggling in the NNADAP program, to try to rectify some of the mistakes the policy-makers have made. I'm not saying I'm going to get 100% results, but I'm going to try. I'm going to try.

As I said earlier, I have studied these policies--Bill C-7, Bill C-49, all those. I have studied with whatever knowledge I have. I never completed my grade 12. I was sort of bounced back and forth between the white man's education and the Indian education. But I came back to my culture, my language. Maybe the terminology I'm using here is not as up to par as other politicians have, but I've learned what I have learned, and then from there I try to study the policies, the things that are coming down.

The chief mentioned the third party. Yes, this is where this chain has become shorter for us, because we are now under an Indian management company, controlling another Indian with the federal government policies.

Now the government is saying all this is Indian-driven. Yes, we understand what that means. It's all Indian-driven, in a sense, with Indians controlling Indians. But I don't think that's a very fair assessment.

I feel we need to acknowledge a lot of Indian rules, Indian regulations, in order for us to be able to come to a consensus on what we're looking for. As the chief said, our money is bare-minimized. Whatever administration dollars come through are very limited, even in the health department where I work.

To tell you the truth, I'm only earning 15¢ a kilometre under the old MSB rules and regulations, and yet I have to drive my people to rehab centres where they can get treatment--and I do that for the sake of my people; I'm not doing it for the money. But when you look at the gas prices now, and you look at other things that go through, you wonder what that 15¢ is going to buy you today. I'm being realistic when I say this as a NNADAP worker.

I'm not going to take too much of your time, but I feel that in order for us to resolve issues dealing with policies, we have to come to a common table where we look at each other, person to person, and you have to respect my wishes, my culture, my language, you name it, and I will do the same for you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

À (1045)

The Chair: Thank you very much. That's a deal. Don't put yourself down. You spoke very well, and the contribution you made will be very helpful to us. Speaking from the heart is always the best way.

I will offer five minutes to the Bloc Québecois or the NDP.

Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you for your presentation.

You've made the point, like other witnesses we've heard, that if the Indian Act is to be opened up, or if the broad issue of the relationship between first nations and Canada is to be opened up, that these are not the subjects you would have chosen to debate or to spend our time on. Accountability, how you elect your officers, is not the number one, top-of-mind issue for the people you represent. You'd rather talk about education, housing, health care, resource management, any number of those things.

Do you share my view that this is a missed opportunity, if this is the only chance in this generation that we will get to discuss, to revisit, our relationship? Why these subjects and why not issues of substance like the ones you've brought to the table? Can you share your views about that question?

Chief Walter Constant: Okay. Thank you.

We have no problem with elections back home. The people decide who's elected. We have an election act we follow.

We don't fall under the Corbier case. If there are people who can afford to come back from B.C. and vote, it's open for them. If they're in Ottawa, they can come back, it's open for them to come and vote. If they want to come and run for chief or council, it's up to them to come back.

We don't close the door to anybody, except for Bill C-31s. We don't accept them on our band list. They're on our band list, but we get no funding for them. We didn't get any land base for them; yet they're on our list.

We accepted section 10 of the Indian Act, but right now we haven't been because we're under treaties. We still strive to be under treaties. We're not under the Indian Act, which is being imposed on us. That's not what my grandfather signed when peace was made. We were allocated this. “You go,” they said, “and we'll give you a land base and whatever you need--your education, your housing, plowing, nets, ammunition. You'll get all this.”

But look today now. Our funding is being capped. I can't even build a house. For the last three years now I couldn't even build a house for my community out there because we're under third party. All our funding goes to that debt.

Something has to be done here. The Indian Act is, to me--I don't know how to put it, but I think of my treaties, what my great-great-grandfathers signed, and I believe in them.

I'll let Isaac take over, if he wants to say a few words.

À (1050)

The Chair: There's one minute left.

Mr. Isaac Daniels: I guess basically what you're asking is, do we accept the Indian Act. I don't think so. Our forefathers sort of accepted it. But it was enforced, like all the other policies that have come after the Indian Act, as Sol mentioned--buffalo jump, the 1969 white paper.

I'm well aware of those myself, because as I said earlier, my time in the residential schools gave me some good points in getting educated. I studied all those policies that were put in place.

The Chair: Thank you very much. This completes the second round. We'll start the third round with Mr. Hubbard, who has five minutes.

Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I won't take up all of the five minutes, but I would like to--

The Chair: You could be charged for it.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Well, that's what we're talking about, Chief, is money, isn't it? Time also is money.

Mr. Chair, I'm really concerned. Chief Walter and Mr. Daniels presented what I think is a very serious situation in terms of their relationships with our federal government. If the chief and Mr. Daniels were to consent, I think it might be to our advantage.... You know, governance, Chief, is a two-way street. You don't govern only on one side of the road.

I would suggest, Mr. Chair, if the chief would consent, that when we get back to Ottawa we should get a report on this from our people in DIAND and study the situation to the point where we should look at some resolution.

The chief mentions you've been under third-party management, which is a very expensive form of management. In fact, it's the first cost against your budget, from what I understand. With that, I don't know how you get out of those difficulties, but, Chief, would you...? I know you have annual audits. They do come to Ottawa. We don't see them as a committee.

But I think, Mr. Chair, this is an issue that we really have to look at, and I'm certainly sympathetic to the chief and his assistant in terms of what they are saying here today. The bill talks about governance; let's have a look at governance, if it is a two-way street, whether we're willing to share to see if we can't come to some resolution.

That's all I'd like to say, and thanks.

À (1055)

The Chair: Well, if the committee decides to do a study on that problem, because it is a problem, then the committee would decide who they wish to consult and we could travel. We could make it as big as we want. But I doubt if the committee, and it will be your decision, would say, we'll just go to one reserve and assess the problem there. If we are to do a study, and I certainly would encourage it, well, then we should open it up more.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Mr. Chair, the point is, it's not necessarily a detailed study but at least a report from the other side of the street. We don't see these audit sheets. We are a committee of Parliament. They are within DIAND, but I think, Mr. Chair, we could ask for one and get the other side of the story and find out in terms of the needs that the chief talks about with education, with housing, with health.

I'm astounded they would offer you 15¢ a kilometre to provide transportation for people going for health services.

The Chair: Is that 15¢ as a volunteer or as an employee?

Mr. Isaac Daniels: I think I would be able to do that. As the gentleman was saying, I think that would be a good thing in order for us to come to a consensus. I'm not saying we kick out everything the federal government is offering and let's fight for what we have. I'm not saying that. Basically all I'm saying is, let's meet eye to eye and come to some kind of a consensus, without all the policies coming from the federal government. Let's give us a chance to have some kind of input into the system.

I don't know if the chief is aware, but as Sol mentioned, there are no salaries whatsoever for chiefs and councils, and it's very drastic in terms of what we expect out of a chief. Chief Constant said that every group goes through a process, a third party, and he gets a straight, flat “no”, and I don't think that's necessary in terms of who I am.

I think we have to start looking at those aspects in order for us to come to a consensus.

The Chair: Mr. Hubbard and others, when we have a future business meeting, anything could be asked; we could either ask for a report or we could do a study. We could take months to do it if we want. We can do an intensive study. A few years ago I chaired a committee that did a study on education, and we visited many first nations. So we as a committee can decide to what extent....

I think it's a good point.

But I would like to clear up the 15¢ per kilometre. I have people in my riding who take people to doctors' appointments and to hospital and who get no mileage; others get 10¢. It depends on what the charitable group is giving.

Do you, then, do this as an employee, and if this is the case, as an employee of whom, at 15¢ a kilometre--because it is extremely low--or are you getting 15¢ per kilometre as a volunteer?

Mr. Isaac Daniels: Yes, I'm only getting 15¢ per kilometre.

The Chair: As a volunteer?

Mr. Isaac Daniels: No, as an employee.

The Chair: Who do you work for when you do that?

Mr. Isaac Daniels: I work for the James Smith Band health program. That's a government policy. It's not--

The Chair: It's the government that says they can only pay 15¢ per kilometre?

Á (1100)

Mr. Isaac Daniels: That's the policy of the government. If we were to go higher than that, we wouldn't get reimbursed for all we spend.

The Chair: It's hard for us to agree that it would be reasonable to pay 15¢. It's just not reasonable. We'll look into that.

Mr. Isaac Daniels: Right, but that's the reality.

The Chair: I believe you.

And that completes our time. Thank you very much. It's been very informative.

It brings us to the next presentation.

I would like to know if the Cumberland House Cree Nation chief, Pierre Settee, is here.

Is Chief Eddie Martin from the Fond du Lac Indian Band here? He's not here.

I would like to know if Chief Angus Joseyounen from the Hatchet Lake Denesuline Nation is here. No.

So now we are going to Chief Earl Ermine from Sturgeon Lake First Nation. We invite you to the table.

Welcome, Chief. We invite you to make a presentation. We have 30 minutes together. I think you've been sitting there so you know the routine. You can take the time you wish, but we would appreciate it if you leave the time for questions.

Chief Earl Ermine (Sturgeon Lake First Nation): Good morning to the standing committee. I'm a Cree speaker. I think a lot of times we're bombarded with French and English, so I'm going to address you in Cree initially.

[Witness speaks in his native language]

Unfortunately, I think Rick would be the only one to understand my Cree. But I welcome you to PA and I welcome the opportunity to address this committee. I hope in your travels throughout the country that you are safe. That's coming from me, as chief of the Sturgeon Lake First Nation.

I'd like to welcome you to the administrative centre of the grand council. Also, welcome to the territory of the Peter Ballantyne Band, who have allowed us to use their facilities and their land for this meeting.

As chief of the Sturgeon Lake First Nation, I am pleased to have this opportunity to address the members of the standing committee on aboriginal affairs. In our area, which is covered by Treaty 6, we are more concerned about treaty recognition than we are with redefining Indian Act laws and regulations.

Grand Chief Merasty outlined many of our concerns with the proposed legislation in his presentation to the standing committee on February 4, 2003, in Ottawa. We concur with his presentation, which outlined the meetings we had in our communities in relation to the proposed legislation.

In the proposed suite of legislation that's coming in from Ottawa, we have Bill C-6 dealing with the specific claims, Bill C-7 dealing with the First Nations Governance Act, and Bill C-19 dealing with statistical management and related issues. We also have Bill C-49 coming on stream. It deals with lands.

I see these acts as being interrelated in dealing with first nations people. These acts become stumbling blocks for a lot of activity in our first nations communities.

I'm here to address Bill C-7, but before I get into details of the proposed legislation contained in Bill C-7, I wish to give you a snapshot of my community.

My community is situated approximately 55 kilometres northwest of Prince Albert. We have in excess of 2,200 people on our membership list. Out of those 2,200 people, 60% are still living in our community. Forty per cent of those people live in either Prince Albert, Saskatoon, or other cities in western Canada.

Á (1105)

Our first language is Cree, the second being English.

Our reserve land base right now is about 22,000 acres. Like most first nations in Saskatchewan, we operate our own K to 12 school with a student enrolment in excess of 325 students. And like most bands in Saskatchewan, we offer some health services to our people. This includes transfer programs as well as targeted programs. As well, as in most first nations, a lot of our people are dependent on social assistance.

We are currently in the early stages of developing an FM radio station to deal with the language retention of our people. As in most communities, the first nations languages are under attack. We have in the population probably under one-third, very few of our people, speaking the Cree language.

We also have a child and family services program in our community that operates at arm's length from council.

Like most first nations, we operate the housing program. We currently have in excess of 200 units in Sturgeon that are liveable. As in most first nations, overcrowding is an issue in our community. On average, we have about seven people living in a one- or two-bedroom unit.

Capital budgets have remained unchanged for many years, close to 20 years, even though our population is increasing at a rate of 4% a year. In 2001, we had an accumulated deficit in excess of $800,000. In 2002, we managed to reduce this accumulated deficit by over $700,000, and we are currently in a balanced budget position.

The political structure of the first nation consists of myself as chief, and six councillors who serve a three-year term. Advisory committees are a major interest area and provide advice and recommendations to council.

Since 1978, the first nation has elected its leadership under band custom.

Like many people in first nations communities across Canada, many of our members are survivors of the residential school system, and we continue to feel the residual effects of children being taken from their parents' homes through family dysfunction.

That gives you a snapshot of my community, the types of situations and issues we're currently faced with. There's a lot more that I can talk about in my community, but because of the time constraints, I'd like to just leave it at that.

I now wish to highlight some of my concerns with the proposed legislation under Bill C-7.

Before I do that, I'd like to say something about the current Indian Act and the proposed Bill C-7.

Á (1110)

I think our leadership in first nations communities and the membership are quite ignorant of the Indian Act itself. Because we've signed treaties, the Indian Act is secondary in our daily lives. We focus on the treaty issues because those were the fundamental ways our grandfathers prepared us to live.

Prior to the signing of the treaties there was no Indian Act. It was only after the setting of the treaties that the legislation was introduced to govern how we lived in our communities.

In the preamble section it is stated that historically first nations have not had the effective tools of governance, and the government wishes to recognize the inherent right of self-government. Historically this is wrong. First nations had their own procedures for governance. Any changes to this have to be done in good faith, recognizing the existing treaties as a basis for discussion.

In clause 2, interpretation, it is stated that an eligible voter is a member of the first nation living on or off the reserve. This creates a situation where the elections have to be held in more than one location. This increases the cost of the election significantly and has to be addressed through budget increases. In addition, we need financial resources to properly serve our off-reserve members with programs.

Subclause 32(2) allows the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs to usurp the rule of band custom law. In our situation where we have the band custom election act, we also have provisions in that election act for a tribunal to deal with appeals. In the proposed legislation the minister decides whether the appeal is upheld or thrown out.

I have some major concerns about that. When you're dealing with those kinds of issues, where do you draw the line on what responsibility the minister has over our lives?

There are no provisions in the draft legislation for capacity building through the identification of funds to carry out work as identified in the proposed legislation. This legislation envisions us making available our financial information to anyone requesting such information, whether or not they are our members. We as first nation leaders cannot be accountable for those other than our band membership.

Subclause 11(1) is completely unacceptable. The proposed impartial person would usurp the role and authority of council. Where does this stop? It allows non-members who live on reserve to make complaints. We are not accountable to non-members and they don't have the right to question our decisions while they are guests in our first nation community.

What is meant by legal capacity in the proposed legislation? Does it mean we can pledge our land and other resources with the risk of losing all these assets if we default? We believe that having the right to pledge or otherwise dispose of our land is contrary to the spirit and intent of our treaties.

Á (1115)

Under Treaty 6, our land was set aside for the use and benefit of our first nation. This means not only today's generation but also generations unborn. If we subdivide and allocate land through certificates of possession, what does that leave for future generations?

In closing, the draft legislation will only provide an administrative nightmare for first nations. We already have policies in place that our people understand and that work well. This piece of legislation, if adopted by Canada, gives the minister more power over our lives. The minister decides what's best for our people. It is a major distraction for first nations leadership from the important day-to-day issues we have to deal with.

Past legislation has not worked effectively, and this will also become a statistic if things are not done properly and cooperatively. Bill C-7 was drafted in isolation of first nations and their leadership by the Government of Canada. If any new legislation is to be effective, it has to be done in cooperation with first nations, rather than imposed on them. For this very reason we ask that Bill C-7 be repealed to allow for a proper consultation process to occur.

In an interview last week addressing a national business summit, Minister Nault said, “In this country there is a third order of government called first nations government”. We now ask to be treated as a third order of government and be consulted and worked with cooperatively in legislation that is effective. The unilateral imposition of legislation by the Government of Canada on the first nations governments is unacceptable.

Mr. Chairman, that is my presentation. It's short and to the point.

The Chair: It was very well done. We thank you for it.

I have room for two five-minute questions.

Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Thank you very much, Earl, for your presentation this morning. I want to ask some questions on the concerns you've mentioned here.

If it were clear that only first nations persons would be allowed to make use of that redress process through an ombudsman--somebody of your choosing who you had respect for on a regional or national basis--would that kind of resolve it or be of less concern for you? Is your biggest concern that it would be used by a non-first nations person to harass a band, a chief, a council?

Á (1120)

Chief Earl Ermine: We currently have systems in place that work. We don't want another piece of legislation being imposed on us that's going to create some difficulty in our communities. We have ways to deal with grievances, complaints.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Your own first nations people--at least different ones, and I think you'd be honest to admit that too--have said they don't feel it's even good protection for chief and council sometimes. I don't know what processes you're talking about because they obviously vary at different points around the country.

But when you have people come to you, as I do, surely you would want an impartial, or deemed to be impartial, independent person address those issues and say whether someone had a case or not, so they couldn't continue to come after you as chief and council. That's what I guess I'm asking.

Chief Earl Ermine: Regardless of what you do in any situation, you are going to have people who are perpetual complainers.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: True.

Chief Earl Ermine: You probably have some constituents who come knocking at your door every week complaining about something.

My point here is, where does it stop? If you allow people the opportunity to complain, they can complain about small things, sometimes things that are insignificant, but I think you have to draw the line somewhere. What kinds of complaints are you going to be taking and from whom?

In the system right now that deals with complaints, there's sort of a pecking order that most complaints go through. Let's say our band manager or director of education or director of health is able to deal with those issues. Then, if they reach us, if the administration can deal with it, they are wasting our time. You have to give the system the benefit of the doubt. I don't think this process does.

The Chair: You have two minutes left.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Okay. I would like to explore that with you further, because I'm not fully aware of the systems, and I do agree that there have to be ways too. In some of these issues people maybe really don't have anything in substantive form.

The other thing you mentioned here was, particularly under Treaty 6, land was set aside for the use and benefit of first nations. I agree. And then you have a problem, it appears, with the matter of certificates of possession.

I ask the question because places like Six Nations down in Brantford, Ontario, and others, really like the idea of the certificates of possession. It doesn't lose the land. It doesn't diminish the land. In fact, as they see it, it's passed on to the family member or, by will, to somebody else in that particular band.

In terms of developing a modern economy, how do you not have some form like that? It does seem to work in some of these, and some tout it and are quite impressed with using certificates of possession. They honour them; they really stay faithful by that. It seems to work even in terms of economic development for some of those reserves.

Chief Earl Ermine: I think it all depends on what type of community you are dealing with. The Six Nations may be more advanced than most communities. I know Westbank is, when you are talking about allotment for development. But when you look at subdividing your community....

I know it has been talked about in our community, and I think a lot of our community members are opposed to that, because there is some danger when you are looking at a certificate of possession or even subdividing your community. If somebody comes along and says, hey, I have this certificate of possession for this parcel of land, and I'm going to chattel it away....

I'm thinking probably beyond what you are, because I know my community.

Á (1125)

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: They don't like to do that.

The Chair: That's it. Time's up, Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Martin, five minutes.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you, Chief Ermine, and thank you for opening your remarks in your own first language.

Mr. Laliberte may be the only fluent Cree speaker at the table, but I did take Cree in high school as my language choice. It's always interesting to me to hear it spoken well.

You made a number of good points and I've made a lot of notes, but you can tell me if this fairly summarizes the theme of your presentation: to you, tinkering with the Indian Act is secondary to dealing with the substantive issues of implementation of treaties.

I'll give you one quote from a previous presenter, who said--if I understand you correctly, you'll agree--that good governance without true sovereign powers is about as likely to be effective as sovereign powers would be without good governance; in other words, putting the cart and the horse in the order they belong. You want to talk about sovereignty issues and implementation of treaty issues more than you want to talk about tinkering with the Indian Act.

Is that a fair summation?

Chief Earl Ermine: I'll put it this way to you. This is my third term as chief in my community. The first two terms, starting from 1992 to 1998, I never read the Indian Act once. To me the Indian Act is insignificant in my life. It's only people who study the Indian Act who start realizing that there are certain things the Indian Act allows you to do. But I think I went beyond that, thinking I could manage the community without the use of the Indian Act.

A lot of the decisions we've made in our communities are based on treaty and duties passed on to us as well. So I don't use the Indian Act as a bible on how we control our lives in our community. For a lot of first nations people, the Indian Act is a barrier to development. It's a barrier to control them.

I'm not sure. I think we're talking about somebody's legacy here.

Mr. Pat Martin: I'd like to ask one specific question.

You made a point that absolutely shocked me. You said the capital budget for your home community or first nation has remained unchanged for virtually 20 years, yet your population is increasing by 4% a year.

That's perhaps enlightening to the other members of the committee as to why so many first nations communities could get into money management problems. If they're trying to provide the same basic needs with insufficient funds, it isn't any secret.

The question is, though, the implementation of these new rules, which I believe probably will become law, is going to cost money too and take money away from other necessary spending.

Can you speak to that?

Chief Earl Ermine: I think when you deal with any kind of development in your community, if you're redrafting your membership code, if you're doing an election act, or putting in place some financial management regulations--anything you do--it's going to cost money. And if you don't have the money to do that, how can you properly prepare yourself to deal with those issues before you?

If you're dealing with the minister himself, the Liberal government.... You have these consultations, these hearings across Canada, and if the minister didn't have the money to do that, you guys would be staying in Ottawa. You need the tools to do the things you want to do.

That's the analogy I like to make, because those are the same kinds of things we have to deal with in our communities.

Mr. Pat Martin: We've heard one estimate. The vice-chief for British Columbia, Satsan Herb George, hired a chartered accountant firm, Deloitte & Touche, and they estimated between $200,000 and $400,000 per community, right across the country.

That would be $80 million in British Columbia alone just to implement these changes, if there were cooperation and a will to do so. If there were no will to do so, heaven knows how much it would cost. That's $80 million that could have gone into health, education, housing, whatever, going into implementing something nobody seems to want imposed on them.

Á (1130)

The Chair: Thank you very much. That completes the five minutes.

I will only clear up one little point that doesn't change the intent of your comment. The minister doesn't fund what we are doing; it's the House of Commons. I repeat this everywhere we go. We are not a committee of the minister, of the Prime Minister, or of government. We are accountable to the Speaker of the House. It doesn't change the intent of what you said. I understand what you were saying.

I'll give you back the time I took, so you have just about a minute and a half for closing remarks.

Chief Earl Ermine: I'm not sure, but I guess I'd like to thank the committee for this opportunity to address some of my concerns, although the issues I raised are just a small portion of the issues I would like to raise.

I've taken the time to read the proposed legislation. I have a lot of concerns with it. I think proper consultation, proper partnership, needs to happen with the feds, because in order for things to work in our community, people have to take ownership of that, and if they don't take ownership, again, if we have legislation being imposed on us, nobody's going to accept it.

The Chair: We thank you very much for the very valuable information.

We will invite anyone in the room who wishes to make a personal comment or statement to the committee. We will grant you two minutes to do that--anyone who has not presented or is not scheduled to present.

We will start with Florence McLeod for two minutes.

Anyone else wishing to make a statement can register at the table, and we will be glad to receive you.

Florence is accompanied by Selina Ballentyne, and we will also invite Selina to make a presentation.

Ms. Florence McLeod (As Individual): That's just what she finished telling me. She said, don't let me speak.

Good morning. I'd like to welcome you to our good city of Prince Albert.

I've lived here mostly all my life, so I know a lot of people, a lot of business people. I also have a lot to do with the racism committee I belong to. I also belong to the housing...and also Aboriginal Head Start. I'm a very active member of the Montreal Lake Cree Nation here in the city.

In fact, it leads me to ask the question very appropriately at this time as to how I could possibly have the federal government, or whoever it is who has to do with treaty people who live off reserves like myself, and not being able to be paid while I do these meetings.... At times I catch the bus because I don't have a vehicle right now. My husband has it going to work. Sometimes I go on the bus, and then when I do miss the bus, I hitchhike. I'm just lucky that I've been able to find good people to catch a ride with. That's one of my grievances.

I'm going on to the main reason why I decided I would come to this--I guess it's called a standing committee.

The Chair: You should proceed faster because we're almost at two minutes. We'll give you an extra minute.

Á (1135)

Ms. Florence McLeod: I only have three things, and I'll try to—

The Chair: You will have to do it in one minute.

Ms. Florence McLeod: An appeal that was made at Montreal Lake regarding the current elections that were held at that time with Mr. Nault--we did not receive any information or response from his office. That's one point.

And where did the $300,000 go during our elections that was promised to the people of Montreal Lake? That's the second.

The last and most important is where and what can be done about a band councillor who took a cheque right in front of a person, who the person owed money to? There should be some kind of standard where there could be some guidelines, policies. We're talking about the elections. We're talking about policies, guidelines all the time. What can we do?

In that last part I'm speaker for my elder, Selina.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Those are legitimate questions that you should be able to ask the department or the minister. What I tell my constituents is send me the letter and I will hand deliver it for you. So maybe you could try that here.

I thank you very much. It's no fun chairing and having to cut people off when I know how difficult it is to appear. We do have rules. It may make you feel good to know that when the minister appeared, I cut him off twice.

Could we hear from you, Mrs. Ballentyne? This is like being around the kitchen table, Selina. Relax. It's just like family.

Do you wish to talk a little bit more about the last point Florence made? If you wish, you can do it in your language and Mr. Laliberte will share it with us after. If you wish, you can tell Florence and she will translate for you.

Ms. Celina Ballentine (As Individual): I want to ask about what the councils are doing. The reserves don't seem to say anything. I never talk to them or they never talk to us.

But last welfare day this welfare worker took a cheque away from this guy. This guy wanted that cheque and that was supposed to be his cheque, and this woman took the cheque away from this guy. He didn't get welfare or anything. And that guy needed that welfare.

The Chair: I thank you very much for sharing that with us. You could get answers from the department people in his local region. But we will take note of that. Thank you very much.

I'd like to say that everything you say, all the documents you bring to us, are kept on record. They're taped, they're fed to Ottawa, and they're typed. So when you appear before us you're not just talking to the walls. We are paying attention. Everything's on record and we will be referring to it. We thank you very much.

Now we welcome Marco Theriault to make a two-minute presentation.

After Mr. Theriault's presentation, if there is anyone who is scheduled to appear later today and is willing to appear now, we will stay and have our lunch later. We have slotted an hour for lunch. We don't need that long. Preferably, if we could get Chief Garry Standing, that would bring us up in our schedule.

Mr. Theriault.

Mr. Marco Thériault (As Individual): Good morning. I'm Marco Theriault. I'm from the Fond du Lac Band, and I've lived there for 33 years, off and on.

I want to talk about mining industries. Everybody's arguing about land and stuff like that and who gets what. It's one big waltz. But what the aboriginal people want to know is, when do we get a cut of all the mineral rights? Everything has been taken away. We've been rounded up and put on reserves and shut down. Our reserves are growing bigger every day. About the need for education money, health money, there are great big calls for it, but there's no action.

I know in the government there's accountability on both parties. In order for us to govern ourselves, we all have to work together. We have to let the people know what's being said and what's being heard here. A lot of them are mad at the government. They don't want any part of trying to fix things up because we've been pushed aside too many times.

My question is, when do we really start to act as partners and share what we have too? Canada is a rich place, and I think we can all share, benefit, and make better people of everybody. Right now, there's so much racism in this world, in Canada itself, and it's all got to do with money, and oil, and uranium, and gold. It's all got to do with that.

When all the mines leave and all that, we're the ones who have to live with the mess they leave. Look at Lake Athabasca. The mine shut down. That's a big lake to be polluted. They're talking about cancer cells and all this stuff, but all that stuff is from the stuff we brought out of the ground.

We didn't clean it up. Someone has to clean it up. Now they're talking about how there's going to be a big cleanup there, but when they go back to clean that place up and they start disrupting the ground and stuff like that, there'll be more seepage into Lake Athabasca and there'll be more health risk all over.

They even had big spills in Wollaston Lake. And they're talking about finding white cancer cells in their people. We want help. We all want help. We all want to work together. We all want to live in this Canada together as partners, but if we're going to work together, first nations people also have to be looked at and taken care of.

That's all I have to say.

Á (1140)

The Chair: We thank you for that presentation. We don't pretend that what we're doing with Bill C-7 will fix the problems.

Mr. Marco Thériault: No. I know that.

The Chair: This is just a small piece of it. Hopefully, the government will entertain other legislation that will really give the tools to create wealth. We'll certainly be there to push them to do that. Thank you for your presentation.

Is there anyone who was scheduled to present later who would agree to present now?

Are you wanting a two-minute presentation? Sure. What is your name please?

Mr. Wesley Daniels (As Individual): Good morning, and thank you.

I have a copy of Chief Ermine's presentation.

I'm one of his first nations members, and I have been known to be an opponent of his at elections. We ran in some of the elections for chief. I'm also a former chief.

I don't have much time, so I'll begin. They were talking a little while ago in these presentations about government, or legislative people in power, usurping the authority of chief and council. I see that happening when they say they will legislate a person who people can complain to. We have legislation doing that to us now. We have asked our people to elect spokespeople and they have always done that. I have always done that. Once I elect them to speak for me, I leave them to do that, and I do not want to have somebody out there, even the minister, appointing somebody and saying this person will have authority over your elected people. You do not have that in your government and we don't need it in our government. So we have a serious problem with that. Bill C-7 means even more control than the old Indian Act exerted. So I see our reserves, our first nations people, disappearing as we know them now, with the legislation.

There is also another piece of legislation in progress that goes hand in hand with Bill C-7, and that's Bill C-19. I looked at that. It destroys us completely. Bill C-7 is only a forerunner of Bill C-19.

So I wanted to bring that out very briefly. It gets me mad, so I don't want to say any more.

Thank you.

Á (1145)

The Chair: We thank you very much for your presentation.

Colleagues, we will suspend, and unless you object, I will suggest that we suspend until 12:30 rather than one o'clock, because there are other chiefs who are scheduled to present and they are in other meetings in this building. Hopefully one of them will be able to present at 12:30 to help us move ahead in our schedule. We will resume at 12:30.