AANR Committee Meeting

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

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

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

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Wednesday, February 19, 2003

1305

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

Grand Chief Clarence Pennier (Stó:lõ Nation Government House)

1310

The Chair

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

1315

Grand Chief Clarence Pennier

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Grand Chief Clarence Pennier

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Grand Chief Clarence Pennier

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Grand Chief Clarence Pennier

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

Grand Chief Clarence Pennier

Mr. Pat Martin

Grand Chief Clarence Pennier

1320

Mr. Pat Martin

Grand Chief Clarence Pennier

Mr. Pat Martin

Grand Chief Clarence Pennier

Mr. Pat Martin

Grand Chief Clarence Pennier

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Grand Chief Clarence Pennier

The Chair

Grand Chief Clarence Pennier

The Chair

1325

Mr. Frank Brown (As Individual)

The Chair

Mr. Frank Brown

The Chair

Mr. Frank Brown

The Chair

Mr. Frank Brown

1330

The Chair

Mr. Frank Brown

The Chair

Ms. Shana Robinson (As Individual)

1335

The Chair

Mr. Roland Gatin (Saltspring Islanders for Justice and Reconciliation)

1340

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Roland Gatin

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.)

Mr. Roland Gatin

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Mr. Roland Gatin

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Mr. Roland Gatin

Mr. Charles Hubbard

The Chair

Mr. Roland Gatin

The Chair

1345

Ms. Isabel Heaman (Corresponding Secretary, Aboriginal Rights Coalition, Victoria)

1350

The Chair

Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Canadian Alliance)

Ms. Isabel Heaman

1355

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Isabel Heaman

The Chair

Ms. Mary Wall (Parksville/Qualicum Kairos Group)

The Chair

Ms. Mary Wall

1400

Ms. Rosemarie Hague (Parksville/Qualicum Kairos Group)

Ms. Juliana Kratz (Parksville/Qualicum Kairos Group)

Ms. Mary Wall

1405

Ms. Juliana Kratz

1410

The Chair

Ms. Rosemarie Hague

The Chair

Ms. Juliana Kratz

The Chair

Mr. Cliff Atleo, Jr. (Manager, Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council)

Mr. Nelson Keitlah (Co-Chair, Central Region, Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council)

1415

The Chair

Mr. Cliff Atleo, Jr.

1420

The Chair

1425

Mr. Reed Elley

Mr. Cliff Atleo, Jr.

1430

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

1435

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Cliff Atleo, Jr.

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Cliff Atleo, Jr.

Mr. Nelson Keitlah

1440

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Mr. Cliff Atleo, Jr.

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

1445

Mr. Cliff Atleo, Jr.

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Cliff Atleo, Jr.

The Chair

Mr. Nelson Keitlah

The Chair

Mr. James Wilson (Chairman, Kwakiutl District Council)

1450

1455

The Chair

Mr. James Wilson

1500

The Chair

Mr. James Wilson

1505

The Chair

Mr. Micha Menczer (Kwakiutl District Council)

1510

1515

The Chair

Mr. Micha Menczer

The Chair

Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian Alliance)

1520

Mr. James Wilson

Mr. David Chatters

Mr. James Wilson

Mr. David Chatters

Mr. James Wilson

The Chair

1525

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Micha Menczer

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Micha Menczer

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. James Wilson

1530

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

1535

The Chair

Mr. James Wilson

The Chair

Mr. James Wilson

Mr. Charles Hubbard

The Chair

Ms. Gloria Cope (Aboriginal Neighbours)

1540

1545

The Chair

Ms. Gloria Cope

The Chair

Ms. Gloria Cope

The Chair

Dr. J. R. Wytenbroek (Chair of the Human Rights Committee, Malaspina Faculty Association, Malaspina University-College)

1550

1555

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Dr. J. R. Wytenbroek

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Dr. J. R. Wytenbroek

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Dr. J. R. Wytenbroek

Mr. Charles Hubbard

The Chair

Dr. J. R. Wytenbroek

The Chair

Dr. J. R. Wytenbroek

The Chair

1600

Ms. Eileen Wttewaall (As Individual)

The Chair

Ms. Eileen Wttewaall

The Chair

Ms. Eileen Wttewaall

The Chair

Mr. Richard Behn (Coordinator, Northeast Aboriginal Trappers Society)

1605

The Chair

Mr. Richard Behn

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources

NUMBER 032

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Wednesday, February 19, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

· (1305)

[English]

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

I am pleased to welcome, from the Stó:lõ Nation Government House, Grand Chief Clarence Pennier.

I would start by thanking you very much for accepting to present earlier. It may mean that we'll make it on time to Prince Rupert, if we can move everybody else up.

We have 45 minutes together. We invite you to make your presentation, which will be followed by questions.

Please proceed.

Grand Chief Clarence Pennier (Stó:lõ Nation Government House): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My name is Clarence Pennier. I'm representing the Stó:lõ Nation. We have 19 communities for which we provide programs and services. There are 17 of our communities in the B.C. treaty process.

I am the newly elected Stó:lõ Yewal Siyam, a title similar to being president of the organization. And I just wanted to acknowledge Nanaimo for allowing me to be here to make this presentation this afternoon.

To the members of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources, thank you for allowing me to make a presentation, on behalf of Stó:lõ Nation, on Bill C-7.

From time immemorial, the Stó:lõ have traditionally used and occupied S'olh Temexw, which is our land, and Sxéxó:mes, which refers to the gifts of the Creator, which are all the resources in our land. Each Sxéxó:mes has a Shxweli and all are interdependent. When we're talking about Shxweli, it's the spirit of the resources that exist, and we depend on them in anything we do.

Our teachings emphasize our obligation to continue to care for and manage S'olh Temexw and Sxéxó:mes. Our teachings specify how we share and trade Sxéxó:mes among ourselves and with others.

The Stó:lõ are a distinct people with our own language, culture, traditions, and a land base, and we continue to exist. We have a right to be recognized as a nation that exercises sovereignty over its land, resources, and people. A nation maintains social order through its laws, customs, and traditions.

Other first nations recognize that we have a traditional territory. There were jurisdictional overlaps because we have unique forms of ownership. There was joint use of certain portions of our territory with our tribal neighbours, based on our relationships.

The wealth of our land and waters includes all resources, surface and sub-surface, renewable and non-renewable. Without our right to the wealth of the land and waters, the right to exist as distinct peoples and to function as a nation becomes meaningless.

Our aboriginal title and rights give us the right to self-determination. In order to survive and prosper, we must be able to continue to shape our own social order in terms that reflect our world views. This includes the right to determine the form of government we will rely on and to define the structures of decision-making within our communities.

We continue to affirm our language, culture, and our rich heritage. We accept the responsibilities inherent in governing ourselves and seek the guidance of Chichelh Si:yam, our Creator, to govern with wisdom and respect for all people.

Aboriginal title and rights are fundamental to our continuation as a nation. The Constitution Act, 1982, states “The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed”.

In 1983, the Stó:lõ made a similar presentation regarding the issue of self-government to the special committee chaired by Mr. Penner.

In 1986, the Supreme Court of Canada decided in the Guerin case that Canada owes a fiduciary responsibility to the Musqueam, which would apply to all first nations.

In 1985, a similar presentation would have been made by the Stó:lõ to the task force to review the comprehensive claims policy.

In 1990, the Supreme Court of Canada in the Sparrow decision stated that the aboriginal right to fish is a constitutionally protected right and any rules or regulations infringing on that right must be justified.

In 1992, the British Columbia Treaty Commission was established to be the keeper of the process. It would ensure that treaties would be negotiated between Canada, British Columbia, and the first nations.

In 1994--but it should be 1995--Canada stated that it recognized the first nations' inherent right to self-government as an existing aboriginal right. Policy was set up on what could be negotiated and how negotiations could be conducted.

In 1995, A. C. Hamilton was employed as a fact-finder for the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs to define a new relationship between Canada and aboriginal peoples.

In 1996, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples released its comprehensive report. It made many recommendations that would assist in the development of a nation-to-nation relationship with Canada.

· (1310)

The report and recommendations are sitting on a shelf. Approximately $56 million was spent gathering the information from the first nations and others, and the Stó:lõ made a presentation to this royal commission.

In 1997 the Supreme Court of Canada decided in Delgamuukw that aboriginal title exists and is a right in the land itself.

The Court of Appeal of British Columbia in the Haida Gwaii and Taku River Tlingit cases stated that the governments have a duty to consult first nations in a meaningful way before decisions are made regarding developments that impact on our aboriginal title and rights. The government must also accommodate our concerns or pay compensation.

The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples has not been finalized and adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations. However, article 3 of that draft declaration states that:

Indigenous people have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development;

Article 4 states that:

Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinct political, economic, social and cultural characteristics, as well as their legal systems, while retaining their rights to participate fully, if they so choose, in the political, economic, social and cultural life of the State;

The Stó:lõ want to make it clear to this standing committee that the legislation known as Bill C-7 is unacceptable. It is unacceptable because it delegates authority from the federal government, which does not recognize the inherent rights of aboriginal peoples or first nations. It is unacceptable because it is an infringement on our aboriginal right to self-government. It's unacceptable because it is contrary to our right to self-determination as a distinct people. It is unacceptable because the Stó:lõ are in the treaty process and will maintain our jurisdictions over our land, resources, and people. It is unacceptable because we have not been consulted under the existing common law.

Our conclusion is that the Stó:lõ should be exempt from Bill C-7.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation.

We will proceed directly to questions. Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance): Just off the top, I have some basic interest questions here.

How many band members would there be of the Stó:lõ?

· (1315)

Grand Chief Clarence Pennier: I mentioned that there were 19 first nations that had received programs and services from Stó:lõ Nation, and the population of the 19 would be in the neighbourhood of 4,600. Our population is a little less because there are just 17 that are in the treaty process.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: That was my next question. Do you have a feeling or a sense that this will slow down that process in the move to self-government because of this imposition or requirement to have codes written up and so on?

Grand Chief Clarence Pennier: It won't slow down our negotiations for self-government, but if we're going to be negotiating governance provisions in our treaty, then to impose this legislation on us is unfair because we're already going to be in the process of negotiation.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I have a question in terms of the previous speakers, and you may well have been through it as well. It's the whole issue of when bands these days have resources, be it timber, oil, gas, and so on. How do you deal with the issue, then, of those corporate entities where you want to keep that information so it's not available to all your competitors? I'm not sure if that's a situation you even face, but could you respond to that? For the different bands around, how do they deal with that? I would think they need to make that information available to their people, so it's a bit of a unique scenario they're in.

Grand Chief Clarence Pennier: Well, there are a number of communities we represent that are involved in economic development. When they're negotiating with the companies, they have to provide certain financial pictures to them. I really can't say whether they include all of the full audit reports they're doing, because some of them have successful businesses and they generate a lot of revenue from those.

One of the communities has what we refer to as a strip mall, where they have a number of stores. They went through negotiations over a number of years with the district of Chilliwack and with the company that was going to build it. But as I said, I'm not too sure how much they had to disclose out of all of their audits, such as when they get funding from elsewhere.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: And they would provide some measure of information to their own people, I would assume.

Grand Chief Clarence Pennier: In some cases they would do it willingly, and in some cases it takes a little longer to get some of this financial information from some of the councils.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Mr. Martin.

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

You said that in 1983 the Stó:lõ made a presentation to the special committee chaired by Mr. Penner regarding self-government. I made a motion at this committee a month or two ago that we should expand the membership of the committee to include a representative of the Assembly of First Nations as a full member of the committee with voice but no vote. That's what they did with the Penner inquiry. They felt the subject matter was so important that they should have somebody sitting at the table at all times. Would you have been in favour of a step like that?

Grand Chief Clarence Pennier: I think that would have been beneficial to the committee. It was the late Chief Joe Mathias who sat on the Penner committee.

Mr. Pat Martin: That's helpful.

We just heard quite a detailed package from the B.C. regional vice-chief, Satsan Herb George. There were a number of detailed recommendations.

Your brief says you are against Bill C-7; you don't think it's helpful. With the amendments put forward today, would you be able to support Bill C-7, as amended by the Assembly of First Nations, the B.C. regional vice-chief?

Grand Chief Clarence Pennier: I think, listening to the presentation from the Satsan, it would be safe to say I could go back to the chiefs in the Stó:lõ Nation and recommend supporting those kinds of amendments. Right now, if it goes through as it is, we're saying it would be unacceptable to us. So if there were going to be improvements to recognize some of the things we want to see in legislation, it would work for us.

· (1320)

Mr. Pat Martin: You cited the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples as being the most comprehensive consultation. In your view, were there recommendations in the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples that could have been drawn upon and incorporated into Bill C-7?

Grand Chief Clarence Pennier: It's been a while since I've looked at the royal commission. I guess in one sense I have put it on the shelf myself, but there were a lot of good recommendations that came out of the royal commission in terms of having a government-to-government relationship, as well as recognition of the aboriginal title and rights issues and the right to self-government or governance.

So if the government had been sincere in making use of the royal commission report, they could have used it as a basis for this kind of legislation.

Mr. Pat Martin: Are you satisfied that you've had adequate opportunity for input and consultation in the development of Bill C-7?

Grand Chief Clarence Pennier: We really didn't.

I guess in one sense we didn't take the opportunity to have the department come out and provide the information to us, but having them provide information really isn't consultation. We probably would have had the same kinds of discussions, where they would have been telling us that this was what was coming down in the legislation, and we would probably have been saying it was unacceptable to us and was there any possible way of changing it to reflect how we would like to see it changed.

But we didn't go through that kind of process with the department.

I know they tried to have some of their meetings to inform our people, but a few of them were unsuccessful.

Mr. Pat Martin: We heard the last presenter say that consultation without accommodation is meaningless. In other words, if you have a consultation and someone tells you, “We don't like what we're hearing”, if you don't make those changes, the consultation isn't very meaningful.

Would you agree with that scenario?

Grand Chief Clarence Pennier: That's right. That's how it would be, because as in the two Court of Appeal cases--the Haida Gwaii and the Taku River Tlingit--they said they had the duty to consult as well as to accommodate.

Mr. Pat Martin: That's very helpful. Thank you.

The Chair: Are there no further questions?

Mr. Martin, do you wish another few minutes?

Mr. Pat Martin: I'm fine, thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. Do you have closing remarks?

Grand Chief Clarence Pennier: Yes, I could do that.

The Chair: Sure.

Grand Chief Clarence Pennier: Following through on Mr. Martin's question, at Stó:lõ we didn't take the time to review Bill C-7 as thoroughly as Satsan and the Assembly of First Nations did. That's why I said I could go back and review their recommendations with the chiefs I represent, and we would probably be able to say that we would support those changes to improve it.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Would Cliff Atleo be in the room? Would James Wilson be in the room?

We then go to panels. I understand we have in the room Mae Gracey, Mary Wall, and Rosemarie Hague from the Parksville/Qualicum Kairos Group.

A witness: Mae Gracey isn't here.

The Chair: Are you prepared to present now? If you are, we would certainly appreciate that. But if your group is not complete, it may be difficult for you.

I think the Parksville/Qualicum Kairos Group is prepared to present now, so we will allow 20 minutes.

I'm not insisting that you present now; I'm asking if you prefer....

Is there anyone in the room who is scheduled to present today? Are you prepared to present now? Would you come forward, please?

I will admit to everyone here that this exercise is self-serving, because if we can move things ahead we'll have more chances of getting into Prince Rupert today.

· (1325)

Mr. Frank Brown (As Individual): My name is Frank Brown. I'm a walk-on to your presentation. I'm coming as a time filler in a way. In reality, I'm scheduled to speak later. To meet your self-serving agenda, should I continue?

The Chair: We'll find out if you're on the schedule first.

Mr. Frank Brown:

Yes, I am.

The Chair: Your name is Mr. Brown.

Mr. Frank Brown:

That's correct.

The Chair: Well, no one is scheduled to speak for that. It's spontaneous.

Just stay there.

Did I see there was a group that is prepared to present now that is on the schedule?

Okay, so your panel is not prepared, right?

If you are representing a group on the panel and you are able to present now, we will grant you 20 minutes to do that. In the meantime, I will invite anyone who wants to come and speak for two minutes to come to the table, give your name, and we'll have two minutes for you.

Right now we have Mr. Frank Brown. The time is yours.

Mr. Frank Brown: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My name is Frank Brown, from the Heiltsuk First Nation from Bella Bella. I want to speak to the clause to ensure that our aboriginal rights aren't infringed on. The term is “non-derogation”.

The reason why this is very important to not only myself but to the Heiltsuk First Nation is because my tribe is exercising a commercial aboriginal right to harvest and sell herring roe on kelp. We're the only tribe in Canada that has a commercial aboriginal right to harvest and sell herring roe on kelp or any seafood. It's under section 35 of the Canadian Constitution. It was the Supreme Court Gladstone decision. I chaired that committee for my village, and this is very important in relationship to the work you're doing now.

I've sat here and witnessed this work, talking about governance, talking about fiscal management. We know the economic reality of our people and the amounts of resources we presently have access to. My first nation has access to resources, specifically the herring roe on kelp, because throughout the millennia my ancestors have harvested the roe of herring and sold it to our neighbouring tribes. Also, when the Japanese people came, we sold the roe to them and so on. We have a defined commercial aboriginal right, and now we have something to really talk about.

In the context of this legislation, it's very important that our rights don't get infringed upon. I think we have to look at the issue of capacity-building. You've heard a lot of input about this sort of thing. We have a micro-example of the opportunity for first nations to truly become self-sufficient and self-governing into the 21st century, to reassert our previous and unbroken use of our natural resources.

What has happened is there has been an affirmation of our rights. We are dealing with a huge unemployment rate in my village. As you know, the commercial salmon fishing crashed, and as my village is a fishing village, it went down, and now we only have the herring roe on kelp.

The point I'm making is I want to ensure that when this legislation goes through, if the Satsan is correct that this is a fait accompli, then we want to make sure this is done right and our rights aren't infringed upon. Thank you.

· (1330)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I can assure you that it's not a fait accompli and that the committee will spend a lot of time on non-derogation.

I suggested to my colleagues this morning that--and I know they will--we invite the justice department and the Indian affairs department to find out if they're trying to do something with this--what it is and why. We will take that issue very seriously. Thank you.

Mr. Frank Brown: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Is there anyone else who wishes to present as an individual who is not scheduled to present?

I will call the lady from the back for a two-minute presentation. After that, we will invite Roland Gatin from the Saltspring Islanders for Justice and Reconciliation. This will follow immediately and it will be a 10-minute presentation.

Shana Robinson, please.

Ms. Shana Robinson (As Individual): Thank you. My name is Shana Robinson, and I'm a member of the Lyackson First Nation. I'm an elected council member for Lyackson First Nation. [Witness speaks in her native language]...for allowing this to happen in our territory, or for at least not protesting it to prevent it from happening in our territory.

My two minutes will be brief. I just want to make sure the committee takes seriously the recommendations put forward by the Assembly of First Nations and Satsan. I think they speak very clearly for the majority of the first nations leadership in the province of British Columbia. But it's not just the chiefs who are affected by this legislation; it's also the elected members of the council. My community elected me by 90%, and over 70% of my community turned out to participate in that vote. I feel I represent them adequately and responsibly. I lead with them to create accountable measures for our governance structure.

I have a degree in political science with a minor in sociology. I do that work as my responsibility to my community. I do not need legislation from Canada to tell me to do that work. I take it upon myself. My problem is accessing our dollars. We have over $600,000 in capital funding through selective logging on our reserve that we want to utilize for education. We have 10 students more than what DIA can afford to fund going to post-secondary education. We were told by the department that we're not able to use our capital funding for education. This is a major problem.

We don't need legislation; we need the constraints of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to be released, and we need to put that accountability onto ourselves.

Reed, you know, because you, as well as the MLA, were in attendance for a meeting with the chiefs of my community, that it's by building relationships together that can foster the trust that was spoken of earlier, and I hope we can continue to build on this. But it's the blanket measures that are being put forward by this governance initiative that create the problem.

I refer you to the Harvard Project and the study that was done in the United States. Those gentlemen made it very clear that legitimate governance has to come from the people. I don't know how many times you have to hear that today. Being able to create regimes on your own or be abiding by default regimes is not coming from the people.

I can't pronounce your name, Gérard--I'm not sure if that's how you say it--but I'm sure your companions in Quebec can appreciate the struggle that our people are going through with other people continually telling you, or trying to tell you, how to run your lives and how to better your community. I share a similarity with Quebec in that fight.

My point is blanket solutions don't solve the problem. Default regimes only create a timeline that puts pressure on people to accept things they wouldn't normally accept. Treaty negotiations, and real, meaningful measures in that respect, are the way to create economic opportunities for all Canadians and bring first nations people out of poverty. Legislation is not the answer. [Witness speaks in her native language]

· (1335)

The Chair: Thank you very much. You did very well.

Next we have Mr. Roland Gatin. Mr. Gatin is from the Saltspring Islanders for Justice and Reconciliation. We have 10 minutes for this presentation.

Mr. Roland Gatin (Saltspring Islanders for Justice and Reconciliation): Thank you.

My name is Roland Gatin. I'm speaking on behalf of Saltspring Islanders for Justice and Reconciliation, which is a group of concerned citizens who for two years have been involved with discussing issues relating to first nations, their histories, and the issues that confront them.

We'd like to acknowledge the name of the Snuneymuxw First Nation on whose traditional territory we're conducting this meeting.

Bill C-7 is an affront to first nations people. It is also an affront to all Canadians who value our Constitution. First nations people were not consulted in a respectful, meaningful, or sound way prior to this act being tabled in Parliament. They certainly were not approached as partners in its development. This process thus far has not adhered to the four principles of partnership as outlined by the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples of 1996, which are mutual recognition, respect, and responsibility, and the sharing of lands, resources, and power.

Bill C-7 has received little or no support from first nations people. The Assembly of First Nations says it is fundamentally flawed, that it cannot be fixed with minor adjustments or amendments. They say the bill must be reconsidered, and we, like many non-aboriginal Canadians, support this position.

Long before the existence of the Canadian Parliament, the first nations people across this land exercised many forms of governance as integral parts of their cultures within their complex societies. Even so, in 1867 the federal Parliament gained legislative jurisdiction over Indians and lands reserved for Indians under section 91 of the Constitution Act. However, the Supreme Court of Canada in 1981 stated that this authority had to be exercised in a manner that avoided infringements on aboriginal and treaty rights. Section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982 recognized and reaffirmed these rights.

Native governance or self-government is a fundamental necessity in order for first nations people to exercise these rights. Native governance cannot be seen merely as governance in native communities according to imposed structures. It has to be governance developed from within by the people themselves with reference to their traditional cultures as well as addressing present-day needs. Governance in any society does not stand alone apart from human values and needs, or from lands and resources, and this bill shows no recognition of this, nor does it acknowledge the fact that traditional cultures were often concerned with communal rights.

The bill unilaterally requires first nations to develop codes in the areas of elections, financial management, and administration, and prescribes the criteria these codes must meet. Without sufficient additional resources, first nations are given two years to develop these codes before a default system designed by the ministry would be imposed. This is a clear example of the denial of true first nation self-government and of an unacceptable continuation of the paternalism of the Indian Act. It is an infringement on aboriginal rights.

Speaking personally as one who was born at the start of the Trudeau era, I grew up in a nation that felt proud of itself and where the ideas of a just society and the promises of the Constitution were things I was taught to cherish, and I do. As I've grown older I've come to recognize that in many instances Parliament has sought to undermine these promises and that my faith is better placed in the courts to uphold what is just in our society. I've learned to hang my head in shame at what various and successive governments have perpetrated in my name. No more. I want to feel proud of this country again, as should we all.

Speaking again for my group, we urge that the bill be reconsidered. We propose instead that the Canadian government take as its starting point the recommendations of the 1996 Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples as well as the 1998 joint task commission, both of which first nations do support. National Chief Matthew Coon Come, in his address to this committee, stated that the Assembly of First Nations does not support Bill C-7 as it stands, but he says first nations do want to work with Canada. He says they would applaud an approach that is built on partnership and driven by respect. Partnership and respect can only benefit all of us in Canada, aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike, and it would gain us the respect of communities around the globe.

Thank you.

· (1340)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We have five minutes for questions, so we'll do a two-minute round.

Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you very much, Roland. I want to compliment the group, Saltspring Islanders for Justice and Reconciliation, for taking the trouble to be here today, and I recognize the very good public hearing held on Saltspring regarding the referendum, which I attended. It was very useful.

You've pretty much summarized many of the key points. I notice, though, in your oral text you've changed from the written text the word “withdrawn” to “reconsider”. Can I assume that if Bill C-7 were amended along the lines recommended by Vice-Chief Satsan you would be able to support the amended version of the bill?

Mr. Roland Gatin: That was the intention of changing that word today, yes.

Mr. Pat Martin: I gathered that.

That's all I have by way of questions. Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you.

Colleagues?

Mr. Hubbard.

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

I'm a little confused. Just for the record, is it a voluntary organization you belong to in Saltspring?

Mr. Roland Gatin: Yes.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: And is it representative of both aboriginal or native and non-native peoples?

Mr. Roland Gatin: I would say that is its intention. However, on Saltspring there are very few first nations people living in the community. So as a group it is mainly non-aboriginal.

Some of the work we have been involved in is mainly focused on bringing additional awareness and discussing the issues among our own community, and wherever possible we have sought to be involved in a supportive way, or in efforts to learn more about our neighbours, specifically the Hul’qumi’num out of Duncan and surrounding areas.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: So basically it's a public, voluntary committee that works towards justice issues and reconciliation?

Mr. Roland Gatin: Yes.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Thank you. I'm certainly glad to see that everyone is trying to work for the improvement of our communities and people, both within the bill and outside the bill. Reconciliation is an important point here. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Hubbard.

Do you wish to make a closing remark? We have about a minute and a half left.

Mr. Roland Gatin: I would like to make a couple of comments. It seems to me what this bill is doing, and I'll echo some of the comments made by others, involves not so much self-government as the Government of Canada prescribing a form of government for first nations people and deciding what we think is in their best interests.

I'd like to offer an analogy here. I think Canadians in general get a mite perturbed when the tables are turned on us. Just as an example, I would point to the United States. When the United States tells Canada how they think we should be determining our softwood lumber policy or military spending and things like this, we get rightly annoyed.

I see that this governance act is doing the same thing to first nations people. It's determining how things will run in areas over which we have no legitimate authority. The authority the federal government has is an authority it took unto itself but that I personally don't feel it has. That's my comment.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I will go over the list again in case someone has come in.

Is Mr. Cliff Atleo, Jr. here?

Mr. James Wilson?

Ms. Gloria Cope?

Ms. Isabel Heaman? Okay.

Let's see, you represent the Aboriginal Rights Coalition. If you wish to present, we have ten minutes for you.

Please start.

· (1345)

Ms. Isabel Heaman (Corresponding Secretary, Aboriginal Rights Coalition, Victoria): I have it all ready to do in five minutes.

I would like to acknowledge the Nanaimo Nation on whose land we are presently meeting. They're working on their draft AIP, and we have to wish them success in that, I think.

I'm a member of ARC BC, which has branches in Victoria and Vancouver and is part of a national organization, formerly Project North, now Kairos. It was founded in 1975 at the time of the MacKenzie Valley pipeline inquiry to help native voices be heard on issues that affect them, which wasn't happening in those days and I think possibly is still required today. This remains the focus of our group, but we at our level, ARC Victoria, operate as a community group.

ARC Victoria has followed the B.C. treaty process since its inception. We were a member of the South Island Regional Advisory Committee, which is a third-party interest committee, for several years. We monitor three tables for the Snuneymuxw Nation here in Nanaimo, the Te'mexw around Victoria, and the Hul'qumi'num, which is the Cowichan Valley group. That's our background.

The federal government states that the First Nations Governance Act will modernize law-making and allow bands to put in place their own codes for leadership selection, administration, and financial and political accountability. These are indeed praiseworthy aims, as all parties agree. No one disputes that. The question is whether as presently drafted the bill will help or hinder achieving these aims.

It lays out procedures for first nations to follow in developing codes governing elections, financial management, administration. First nations are expected to shoulder the burden for these complicated tasks without any extra funding, even though they are already challenged financially and in personnel. If the codes are not developed within two years, a default system operates. The Department of Indian Affairs imposes the formula, which is the same for all bands regardless of the immense diversity across the country. Unfortunately, this rigid approach with its tight deadlines seems a recipe for frustration, confusion, and non-compliance.

The minister will wield final power in elections appeals and he will have the power to review and control nations' financial affairs. Again, there's agreement that there should be accountability, but with the minister dictating the rules, it's questionable how much control first nations will really have over their lives. How can accountability be developed at the local level if the actual decision-making takes place elsewhere?

There are critical omissions in this bill. Traditional practices have no place; membership criteria are left unchanged so that the Indian Act provisions still apply; crucial measures that would help develop independence and sustainability are not included—for example, capacity building, education, resource sharing, and participation in setting up institutions of governance.

This is all the more striking in comparison with recent B.C. experience as shown in the B.C. treaty process and the Nisga'a Treaty, which I think deserve a brief glance at this point.

The federal and provincial governments and the first nations are partners in these projects—the treaty process and the Nisga'a Treaty. Contrary to the ground rules, the newly elected B.C. Liberal government decided last year, in the teeth of aboriginal opposition, to hold a referendum that was designed to undermine aboriginal rights. It led nowhere. Commendably, the federal government upheld the principles entrenched in the Constitution and the treaty process. This abortive experiment by the B.C. government proved that invoking discredited past practices is doomed to failure. We cannot turn back the clock and do things in the bad old ways.

Further, the federal government has introduced creative and progressive measures in the treaty process, such as providing cash for land banking and capacity building. Minister Nault personally stepped forward to ensure local government cooperation in Nanaimo when the draft agreement in principle met with resistance. So credit where credit is due: in some instances the federal government has shown leadership and initiative in finding ways to advance settlements in the B.C. treaty process.

· (1350)

So why aren't they doing the same thing in this act? It is mystifying that similar creative measures are not foreseen in this new act. We know they can do it.

Another lesson that comes through loud and clear is the need to not just consult the first nations but to actively involve them in setting up whatever new system is proposed, as in the successfully concluded Nisga’a treaty. Nisga’a leaders negotiated a settlement, worked very hard to familiarize their members with its provisions, and persuaded them to accept it. Clearly, total commitment by the interested parties is essential if the final result is to work. This kind of bilateral process takes time and cannot be rushed, but it is worth the effort because it results in a stable and enduring legacy.

What is disappointing about the present act is that it appears to be a continuation of the Indian acts from 1876 on, in that it reverts to the colonial attitude of deciding in Ottawa what is good for the aboriginal people and imposing the consequent rules and regulations upon them. This approach landed us in the unsatisfactory situation we find ourselves in today. It did not work then and it's certain to provoke strong resistance now. Nobody wants to be a subject people or wards of the state, rather than productive members of society.

Many in the non-native community are unhappy at occupying the position of colonial overlords and regret that the government has chosen to deal with first nations in this top-down fashion. This is not to underestimate the formidable challenge these long-standing problems present. It will take vision, political will, and courage to tackle them successfully. Nevertheless, there is no alternative to working together with the aboriginal people to arrive at commonly agreed upon goals.

Obtaining their consent to the laws that will shape their lives is the only way to achieve just and lasting solutions that will enrich all Canadian society. The honour of the Crown and the well-being of the aboriginal people demand no less.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We have three minutes for questions.

Mr. Elley.

Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much for presenting this afternoon.

I'm just wondering if you would like to comment on what your group sees as a way out of this and how we can work together with our branch and aboriginal peoples to achieve measures of self-government.

Ms. Isabel Heaman: I think we need to have some kind of formal consultation process, as we have in the treaty process. In the treaty process you have teams of people on either side sitting down and working through an agenda in a formal fashion, and then coming up with recommendations, negotiations, and so forth. You have some ground rules to begin with.

Look how the treaty process is organized. For example, in Te'mexw in the Victoria area you have six smaller groups gathered together in a larger treaty association. The whole community has seven bands in the treaty association. On top of that you have the first nations summit that speaks on general policy for all the 50 tables in the process. So you need some form of consultation that is formal and that works.

· (1355)

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you very much for your very interesting brief. I've made a lot of notes.

I thank you for pointing out one of the aspects of the imposition of this bureaucentric view of how chief and council must be elected along Elections Act lines. It doesn't recognize many traditional practices.

I point out that in one group I met with personally, an aboriginal elder, a woman, said that in her village women weren't even allowed to run for chief. Everybody said that was terrible. Then she said, but the men aren't allowed to vote.

Clearly, over thousands of years they had evolved a fairly egalitarian system, but it wouldn't be allowed under these new rules.

So, if you would, use whatever time you have on traditional practices and their value.

Ms. Isabel Heaman: It's very difficult to incorporate them. Again, I refer to the treaty process. If you look at the Nisga'a Treaty, there are 400 pages of it. This is essentially what they try to use as the template for the treaty process.

These little bands of about 200 people, and there's pages and pages of stuff--solemnization of matrimony, child care, and all the rest of it. It all has to be tied down for constitutionalization. Everything has to be up to provincial standards or better, right? It's all down in black and white.

There's absolutely no room there for the contribution of the elders, for example, who are extremely important in native society. Elders do a lot of work and give a lot of advice, so they're relied on very heavily.

You get everything done in black and white, up to provincial standards or better, and there's just no room for the native practices, the native cultural traditions. It's very difficult to legislate that.

The Chair: Thank you very much for an excellent presentation.

Would Mr. Cliff Atleo, Jr. be here? Are you prepared to present? Do you need a few minutes?

Is there anyone in the room who has not addressed the committee and is not scheduled to address the committee but wishes to make a two-minute statement?

Is there anyone from the panel who wishes 10 minutes?

Mr. Atleo, how much time do you need? We want you to take the time you need. I just need an indication of whether I should wait for you or suspend.

So no one is prepared to present at this time?

Come forward, please.

Are the three of you from the Parksville/Qualicum Kairos Group?

We have 10 minutes. We welcome you and we appreciate your cooperation.

Will you be making three presentations or one?

Ms. Mary Wall (Parksville/Qualicum Kairos Group): No, we're all three speaking.

The Chair: You'll have to share the time. We have 10 minutes.

Please proceed.

Ms. Mary Wall: First of all, I would like to thank the Coast Salish people for permission to be on their land today, and I'd also like to thank members of the committee and express our appreciation for the opportunity to appear and to submit our brief. Also, we'd like to recognize and affirm your efforts and concern for the first nations people of our land.

Our purpose in this brief is to highlight certain values, principles, and concerns as we strive to live in a right relationship with our aboriginal neighbours. From a local perspective, we would like to respectfully communicate to you the specific concerns that mean the most to us in this location and as a faith-based organization.

¸ (1400)

Ms. Rosemarie Hague (Parksville/Qualicum Kairos Group): We have several points at issue and recommendations. First of all, everyone, aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike, would like to see fiscal and legal responsibility and democratic fairness as essential parts of aboriginal governance. But the imposition of the arbitrary codes or rules for implementing them planned by the federal government seem demeaning and patronizing towards our aboriginal friends.

Our concern is that this might be one of the issues that makes relationships between aboriginals and non-aboriginals worse instead of better. As non-aboriginals, we need to coexist with first nations peoples in harmony, mutual respect, and justice.

Any governance act must in effect arise from the needs, cultural traditions, and diversity of the people themselves; otherwise, the efficacy of government is diminished.

We also share the concern of small, remote bands who may not have the resources to meet the timelines required for code or budget formation. We recommend that you consult with individual bands in a mutually respectful manner about the band's own plans for administrative improvement and work with them in consultation, as we've heard so often today and yesterday, respecting their unique local situations and values. Great care must prevail to make sure that adequate supports, funding, and flexible timelines for the code's implementation are provided.

Second, no mention is made in Bill C-7 of recognizing the importance of first nations justice practices: restorative justice, healing circles, sacred traditions, and the value of venerated traditional objects such as masks and regalia. These traditions, along with potlatches, form an integral part of how our aboriginal friends organize themselves as a community and serve to give life to their traditional values, especially here on the west coast.

A recommendation is that we support the first nations communities in preserving their cultural traditions wherever possible and help them to regain those items of their precious regalia that were stolen during the infamous potlatch ban.

Ms. Juliana Kratz (Parksville/Qualicum Kairos Group): The third point or issue is that aboriginal women have played a major role in the care and support of their communities in the past and have served as living resources for the history of their families and their culture. At the present time, many of them have post-graduate degrees in law, anthropology, and other fields, and they have contributed greatly, with imagination and vision, to the future of first nations people. No mention is made in Bill C-7 about their role in a future aboriginal self-governance plan.

Recommendation: consult with first nations women, seek their advice, and help in the process of building a new future for aboriginal people.

Ms. Mary Wall: Perhaps you were wondering why we three white people are here and are so concerned, but we feel this matter is something for all Canadians, not just the aboriginal people but the non-aboriginal as well. This is a very serious matter we have to confront. We are going to put maybe a motherhood dimension on this--or should I say grandmotherhood--and we would like to emphasize justice, respect, and sharing with our aboriginal friends.

The federal aboriginal governance plan we've all been reading focuses almost exclusively on the administrative and fiscal accountability issues instead of dealing with the broader picture related to the already legally established right of native people to govern themselves and have legal title to their territory. A number have already been quoted, especially section 35 of the Canadian Constitution of 1982. Thus, the federal government is ignoring history as well as ignoring established native rights. Perhaps more importantly, it is ignoring the modern, more enlightened attitude of many non-aboriginal Canadians that is fast replacing the colonialist attitudes of the past. What is now seen as important by a growing number of Canadians is an attitude of fairness, justice, respect, and neighbourliness towards our first nations people.

I'd like to contrast the bill with what I've been hearing from aboriginal groups in our area as their vision for the future or for self-governance. They seem to have a very different vision from the government's about how they see self-governance working. They understand and they agree with the need for improvements in the administrative practices and accountability in many but not all band councils. But much more important to them is their wish to have their title to and ownership of enough of their traditional lands confirmed and acknowledged so as to make possible the building of communities of people who would be economically self-sufficient and who would be able to maintain their cultural and traditional values. This would also give them the opportunity to address their social, health, and economic difficulties as well.

They would then like to work together with neighbouring non-aboriginal communities to ecologically preserve land and resources for the use of everyone in a fair and just manner. They would like to take their rightful place in Canada as the respected first inhabitants, people who have earned the gratitude of Canadians for all they have contributed towards our common history and culture, and who deserve justice at last after the shameful way they have been treated for far too long in our country.

Our recommendation is to begin the process of viewing administrative improvements and responsibility as only part of a process towards a much more important overall vision of aboriginal self-governance. The blueprint for this vision already exists in the form of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples now gathering dust on an Ottawa shelf since 1996. That paper won the approval of the federal government of the time and aboriginal leaders across Canada. Could it be that now is the time to implement it?

We'd like to end with a poem.

¸ (1405)

Ms. Juliana Kratz: If you will allow me, I will read a poem written by a native woman, Rebeka Tabobondung. I am not sure if you have come across her. I take the liberty because it is a human poem and it is meant for human beings.

Reconciliation

We are waking up to our history
from a forced slumber
We are breathing it into our lungs
so it will be part of us again
It will make us angry at first
because we will see how much you stole from us
and for how long you watched us suffer
we will see how you see us
and how when we copied your ways
we killed our own.

We will cry and cry and cry
because we can never be the same again
But we will go home to cry
and we will see ourselves in this huge mess
and we will gently whisper the circle back
and it will be old and it will be new

Then we will breathe our history back to you
you will feel how strong and alive it is
and you will feel yourself become a part of it
And it will shock you at first
because it is too big to see all at once
and you won't want to believe it
you will see how you see us
and all the disaster in your ways
how much we lost

And you will cry and cry and cry
because we can never be the same again
But we will cry with you
and we will see ourselves in this huge mess
and we will gently whisper the circle back
and it will be old and it will be new.

¸ (1410)

The Chair: Thank God for grandmothers. Thank you very much. We appreciate your presentation. We are encouraged by the fact that all non-aboriginals who have presented have been here to share and help and make life better for aboriginals. It comforts us to see that. Thank you.

Ms. Rosemarie Hague: No time for questions?

The Chair: No, we've gone beyond the time, sorry.

Ms. Juliana Kratz: Thank you all for your fabulous organization here.

The Chair: Thank you.

I understand that Cliff Atleo is here, a manager of the Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council. I understand he is assisted by Nelson Keitlah.

We have 45 minutes maximum. We invite you to make a presentation, which will be followed by questions.

Mr. Cliff Atleo, Jr. (Manager, Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council): Thank you.

Nelson Keitlah, who is sitting with me, is the central region co-chair for the Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council and he's going to begin with some opening remarks.

Mr. Nelson Keitlah (Co-Chair, Central Region, Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council):

[Witness speaks in his native language]

Good afternoon to the committee. It's our privilege to appear before you on such an important day and on such an important matter. We are pleased to participate and contribute what we can as Nuu-chah-nulth people.

There are over 7,000 of us who reside on the west side of Vancouver Island. We are very active in every way in our development. We would like to say to the committee that this is not our first time appearing before committees and standing committees on studies that have been made with respect to our people. We honestly hope this bill being introduced will have positive effects on our people, both aboriginal people and non-aboriginal people. We have been working towards that direction for a number of years as the Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council, where our efforts and our desires have been to better our people in the economic world and also in the social economic conditions. A slow job it sometimes is, but we still feel we are making some serious efforts in improvements for our people.

Today marks an important part of our history to come here to Snuneymuxw to bring forward our interests and what we see from our eyes. Again we would like to show appreciation for the time you've given us.

My colleague, Cliff Atleo, Jr., will continue on with the written presentation. Thank you kindly.

¸ (1415)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Atleo.

Mr. Cliff Atleo, Jr.: I have presented a document entitled “Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council Presentation to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources Regarding Bill C-7 (First Nations Governance Act)”.

In 1973, when then Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau withdrew the 1969 white paper, he said his government would never again attempt to impose unwanted change on the Indian people of this country. Trudeau and Jean Chrétien, then Minister of Indian Affairs, were forced to withdraw the white paper and its ill-conceived notions of equality due to unprecedented outrage and unity expressed by aboriginal people from coast to coast. It seems that what Jean Chrétien was unable to achieve then, his new Minister of Indian Affairs, Robert Nault, is attempting to achieve now with the First Nations Governance Act.

The Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council has grave concerns that the governance act is nothing more than the federal government's attempt to absolve itself of legal liabilities and fiduciary obligations under the guise of doing what's right for the Indians. The governance act is not really about governance, at least not to the Nuu-chah-nulth Ha'wiih, our hereditary chiefs. If the Government of Canada were serious about governance, it would meaningfully address the issue of our inherent right to self-determination in true government-to-government negotiations that result in a fair and just treaty that meets the international standards of such agreements.

The Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council is deeply concerned over the paternalistic and divisive rhetoric coming out of the Department of Indian Affairs' public relations machine. Although the federal government has given assurance that this process will not have an effect on treaty negotiations, we find this hard to believe. Coming to the negotiation table with low and inflexible mandates while at the same time tinkering with the Indian Act teeters on the edge of bad faith negotiations. It is our hope that Canada would not poison the well of good faith negotiations in such a coercive manner. It is the sincere desire of the Nuu-chah-nulth Ha'wiih and Tribal Council that a new relationship built on justice, honesty, and respect be developed with Canada via a negotiated settlement.

We urge the Minister of Indian Affairs and the federal government to consider the concerns and recommendations presented here when developing your amendments.

What follows is a summary of concerns and recommendations that come from the Muschum, the grassroots; the Ha'wiih, the hereditary chiefs; and the Ah-iiha-pit, the advisers, of the Nuu-chah-nulth first nations. Number one, the governance initiative objectives do not address the real challenges faced by aboriginal people. Our people are concerned about unemployment, insufficient housing, dismal education statistics, inordinately high suicide and infant mortality rates, and many other social and economic problems. Tinkering with the Indian Act to address administrative concerns will not solve these problems.

Number two, is this really about governance? It is our understanding that INAC wishes to change the legal status and capacity of bands as well as the nature of reservations. Thinly veiled as an attempt to bolster aboriginal economic development, incorporating bands and changing reserves into fee simple lands effectively absolve the federal government of its fiduciary obligations. We agree that the Indian Act has to go, but it must be done in a responsible manner.

Number three, the approach is paternalistic and heavy-handed. Minister Nault has stated that the Indian Act amendments will not be optional. Regardless of what aboriginal people say or do, INAC intends to implement the changes in a manner that cannot be characterized as anything but paternalistic. The continued subjugation of aboriginal people in this country needs to stop.

Number four, the consultation process is flawed. The Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council feels that insufficient time has been allocated to complete the consultation process. In fact, it has been pointed out that while the Corbiere matter dealt with a narrower scope of issues than this governance initiative, you have allocated less time for a broader range of issues and concerns.

Number five, the consultation rhetoric focuses too heavily on individual rights. Traditional Nuu-chah-nulth societies balanced the rights of the individual and the collective in an ingenious manner. By targeting grassroots Indians and all but ignoring the leadership, the federal government is imposing Euro-Canadian values of individual rights on aboriginal people. Even your own courts have said that aboriginal rights and title are unique in their application to the collective.

Number six, concern over potential leadership selection and voting rights amendments. We agree that the current system is flawed and requires overhaul. We feel that overhaul needs to be conducted by the Nuu-chah-nulth Ha'wiih, Ah-iiha-pit, and Muschum for our own people. Replacing one imposed system with another will not solve the problem.

¸ (1420)

Additionally, there is a concern over how potential amendments would affect several of our first nations who employ a custom system recognizing the traditional Ha'wiih and governance structures.

Number seven is rhetoric over accountability issues. No one is denying the need for strong accountable governments, but again we do not feel that imposing a foreign system will help matters. The implication that most aboriginal governments are corrupt or unaccountable is misleading and inaccurate.

Next is a summary of recommendations regarding the First Nations Governance Act.

First, do not continue to waste taxpayers' money on this hollow consultation process and ill-conceived initiative. Untold amounts of time, money, and knowledge were poured into the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. Why consult again when the RCAP report clearly outlined what the federal government should do to advance the cause of aboriginal self-determination? Do the honourable thing and follow the recommendations in the RCAP report.

Second, fulfill your fiduciary obligations and assist us in building real capacity and enabling us to strongly develop our communities socially, economically, and culturally. Take the money you are spending on the governance initiative and its massive public relations campaign and put it toward true first nations capacity development.

Third, negotiate just and honourable treaties that recognize our traditional governance systems and enable us to rebuild our communities so that we may return to the powerful and affluent societies that existed prior to contact. This can be accomplished if the federal government comes to the table with flexible mandates and the political will to resolve past wrongs.

Fourth, if an attempt to alter the Indian Act in favour of improving first nations' lives in the interim is sincere, we urge the federal government to work with the Assembly of First Nations and other first nations organizations to develop a truly collaborative process. The timeframes for completion also need to be realistic, taking into account sufficient time to thoroughly consult, develop policy, and effectively implement. Remember the late Prime Minister's words when you consider imposing changes without achieving consensus.

Fifth, in the interim, between now and the resolution of treaties, the federal government can provide greater governance support by introducing enabling legislation to give first nations the ability to develop their own constitutions. Additionally, Canada can fund training programs for first-nations-elected chiefs and councils on policy development, bylaws, budgeting, and other administrative areas.

Sixth, ignorance is an enemy. Fund honest education campaigns for aboriginals and non-aboriginals regarding history, rights, and the need for just settlements. Only an educated and sensitive populace can develop and support solutions that will be lasting and meaningful.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I didn't follow the script because as chair I should pay attention. When you spoke of an education campaign, I expected something different. You're the first one to mention an education campaign to educate Canadians on who our partners are, who our fellow citizens are, and who are the people who help us and who we should help. I couldn't agree with you more.

I said before to the three ladies that it's some comfort to us to see that every presentation that was made by a non-aboriginal was made in favour of the aboriginals. But it's not true for all Canadians, we know that. As members of Parliament we get calls, many calls, and some of them are not pleasant. For us they're easy to defend against because we understand the problems, but there needs to be education in this country on all sides.

I sort of fault Indian Affairs that for all the years they've been around and that with all the staff they have, more is not known about this bill. We've been at it for three years, preparing and taking a year to write it and table it. We've been at it since June and we will continue, yet there's somebody out there who's paid to inform people. I'm just upset at how little we are told about Bill C-7, and I hope we'll correct that before long.

Colleagues, if you'll allow me a little bit of time, I'm not here to sell the budget. I'm not even going to say it's a good budget or a bad budget; we won't engage in that. I see opportunities we should grab onto, and I will list what's in the budget. They're still debating the budget; the jury's not out yet. We will find out soon if Canadians think it's a good one or not, but I will name initiatives that were announced for aboriginals.

When we talk about the commission, some of these things are coming into being, but probably not enough. These are things we should seize on, things such as $1.3 billion over five years for health programs. We need more, but it's there; let's grab it and make it worthwhile. There's $600 million over five years for water and sewer systems on reserves. God knows how much we need that. There's $172.5 million over 11 years for aboriginal language and culture, $18 million of that in the next two years.

I chaired a committee that studied education on first nations reserves, and a generation of language has been lost. We have to recuperate now because we can recuperate after one generation but not after two generations.

There's $72 million over two years for education, training, and employment; $42 million over two years for policing programs; $20 million over two years for Aboriginal Business Canada; $17 million over two years to help meet needs of urban aboriginals; $12 million for scholarships; and $6 million over two years for liaison between government and Métis and non-status Indians.

Much more is needed, no doubt. I'm not saying this to defend the budget as a good budget; I'm not going there. But there are occasions we must seize, and I wanted to make the point.

We'll go to question period. Five minutes, Mr. Elley.

¸ (1425)

Mr. Reed Elley: Thank you very much for coming and sharing your thoughts with us today.

I'll just give a little bit of background on myself. My son is Ahousat and he's part of the Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council, so over the years I have had some kind of relationship with the Nuu-chah-nulth. I know you are doing what you can to make things better for your people, and I want to commend you for it. And there's lots more to do yet.

I want to perhaps piggyback a bit on the chair's comments about your point number six, where you say ignorance is an enemy. I've been a long-time advocate of I think a forgotten first step in this country in terms of treaty negotiations and indeed any kind of government-to-government relationships that would do what we all hope will take place for aboriginal peoples, and that's the step that brings non-aboriginals and aboriginals together so we understand each other. We've lived in this country for far too long in two splendid solitudes. Unfortunately, it hasn't been very splendid for much of the history.

So I appreciate what you're saying about this, Cliff, because I think in the long run that's where the root of the problem is. If we don't understand each other, if we don't build mutual respect and trust, all we try to do in legislation or anything else isn't really going to solve the problem at the end of the day.

I'd very much like to know what Nuu-chah-nulth particularly is doing locally to try to take care of that and what you would suggest we could do to maybe start from base one, as I see it.

Mr. Cliff Atleo, Jr.: Thank you, Mr. Elley.

I think the issue of education is critical, and it comes when we hear call-in radio programs and we hear pundits talk about things such as how massive the Nisga'a Treaty is, that the negotiators sold out the country by giving so much money to the Nisga'a, as an example. For first nations people and for Nuu-chah-nulth in particular it's really difficult to listen to that because of the billions and billions of dollars that have left the territories, the unceded territories.

The root of the problem is the fact that we're dealing with a population and government institutions that have failed to come to grips with their colonial past. It's not that long ago that a lot of institutional racism was rampant in this country. Obviously, as far as voting, freedom, the banning of the potlatch, and all sorts of things are concerned, it was only 50, 60, 70, or 80 years ago, which isn't that long ago. The problem we encounter today is that we have a population that has become desensitized to the past.

I can't tell you how many times we hear the argument, “Well, I didn't do it. I wasn't personally killing anybody or limiting their freedoms” or “I didn't have any personal responsibility for it, so I should not pay; therefore, my hard-earned tax dollars should not compensate the native people. If you can't make it, that's your problem.” That gets to the root of the issue when I mention that the colonial past is becoming conveniently easy to ignore.

One of the very simple arguments I make to counter that is the fact that we have a national debt. Certainly, I can say there is nothing I've done personally to contribute to that national debt, but that doesn't absolve us of the responsibility of paying it off. You can't just go to the bank and say, “Well, I didn't do it; that was Trudeau, so go after Justin”, or something like that. It doesn't work that way. There's a collective responsibility. There's a societal responsibility to ensure we have a just society.

Your question regarding what the Nuu-chah-nulth is doing locally is quite broad. We're here representing the tribal council, which has 14 nations within it. A lot of those communities have taken on quite a few initiatives in their individual communities to work with industry and to work with communities to try to create some understanding of what it is we want to achieve and how our rights and how our inherent place are unique. I can think of Hupacasath, for example; Chief Judith Sayers was quite active during the referendum when this province was holding a referendum in reaching out to the communities, engaging in discussions in town hall meetings, meeting with regional councils, city councils, community groups, and that sort of thing. I think individual first nations on various levels have tried to do that.

Additionally, with our treaty table we've also been very open to discussing our issues in educational institutions, anywhere from elementary schools to high schools to colleges and universities, engaging in debate and trying to create understanding.

¸ (1430)

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for an excellent brief.

There are so many good points, but with only five minutes it's difficult. I will focus on the misinformation issue you raise and the rhetoric over accountability issues.

I've already been sanctioned by the chair and told not to point out which political party it was, but there was a concerted campaign in the House of Commons for two years straight leading up to the introduction of this bill where one of the opposition parties would stand up over and over and over again and cite isolated incidents of financial mismanagement in isolated communities and try to thread that together into an overall picture that all first nations communities are either corrupt or guilty of gross mismanagement of funds and therefore self-governance shouldn't take place at this moment in time. It was the official opposition, I might as well point out, that spent their time doing this. It was a concerted campaign to try to build a case--

The Chair: Just a moment.

I was planning future business. Was Mr. Martin attacking the Alliance again? Please don't do that. You're disrupting the work of the committee when you do that, and I will not tolerate it.

¸ (1435)

Mr. Pat Martin: I'm speaking to a specific point in the brief.

The Chair: I ask you not to address individuals by name, or other parties, and they will not do it to you, and we'll do some work around here. Please proceed and follow the rule.

Mr. Pat Martin: I've made my point.

I will talk more about money. You raised the issue, saying please stop wasting money promoting something that nobody wants in this country. That's your message, I guess.

I'd ask you to comment on the amount of money that's been scheduled now for the implementation of Bill C-7, whether it succeeds as it stands or whether it goes ahead with the changes or amendments. There's $123 million budgeted for implementation in the 600-and-some-odd communities across the country.

Do you think it's a good use of taxpayers' dollars to implement or impose these changes when that money could go to actual product in terms of programs--health, education, housing, whatever?

Mr. Cliff Atleo, Jr.: Thank you, Mr. Martin.

I think the keyword in your question is “impose”, and it goes to the root of our concern, what we feel is the paternalistic nature of the legislation, and the fact that the policy-makers and the political people cannot escape a paternalistic approach to this.

We feel that regardless of the amount spent, whether it's $100 or $100,000, the issue is if it's consistently an imposed solution, if accountability is being pushed from the top down, there will always be problems with any changes. So I think the question is more about enabling first nations to truly develop self-determination and recognize it in a real way that may not necessarily fit in with what people feel is the constitutional framework. In order to do that, they do have to come to terms with the colonial issue.

Thank you.

Mr. Pat Martin: Seeing as the budget was raised by the chair, I'd like your views on the fact that yesterday's budget gives $2.5 billion to the military, which has 50,000 people in total, and the total budget of DIAND is $7 billion for one million people--to pay for all of their schools, housing, education, sewage treatment plants, roads, etc.

Imagine if that budget had said $2.5 billion will go directly to first nations communities. You probably would have had people taking to the streets rioting.

Would you care to comment on the overall budget of DIAND as it stands to provide that amount of service to that many people?

Mr. Cliff Atleo, Jr.: I'm not in a position to comment on DND's budget, but I do want to defer to my elder, Nelson, to respond to your earlier comments.

Mr. Nelson Keitlah: Thank you kindly.

First of all, with regard to accountability, we have made great efforts in our tribal council to make certain that accountability is on top of the pile. We have been in existence as the Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council for the last 25 years. We have not failed an audit; our books are in order. So we brag about that as an achievement--how we can keep books ourselves and look after ourselves.

Even though the issue of money is great in some parts, the solution isn't totally in money, where we can equate everything to dollars and cents. It's not going to work like that, even though there are materialistic things here. Housing continues to be a very pressing issue, and there are other things we need in our communities, pretty obviously. But we continue to strive toward what we can with what we have on hand.

Seeing that there was a more generous budget that we read about, and knowing that perhaps a legacy issue came into effect, where we want to read into this what it really is.... And we appreciate; we're not forever suspicious. But we do look into the matter of where it is that we can work better together with the government.

There was a time when we would stomp up and down and demand, degrade and denounce the government, achieving things through embarrassment, but things are not quite like that any more. The issues and the studies we've brought forward to the government are there, and they're real.

¸ (1440)

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Hubbard.

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

Very briefly, thanks for the submission and your concerns about the system and how it worked. I think it is of concern to all of us, in terms of the consultation process. You certainly say it was flawed. I know in some cases people were not consulted probably, but in other cases people did not feel the consultation was open for them or they felt they should not participate.

But with all of this, in terms of your own tribal council, it has worked very well, and maybe others can learn from you. Maybe, in terms of looking at Bill C-7, you could say it would not change many things in terms of what you have done in the past. I'm not sure, Chief, if that's the situation or not, but we certainly, as a committee, would look forward to suggestions.

In terms of your second concern, you talked about fee simple. I'm not sure, Cliff, how you saw Bill C-7 changing that in terms of your land. Is there a particular aspect of the bill you want to refer to in terms of that? Because that's a very important part of the way the relationships have been developed over the last years. And if there are other suggestions, too, that are of concern in terms of reading the bill....

You can always.... The clerk will receive written submissions later, too, which may show particular things that would be of concern to you and your people.

Mr. Cliff Atleo, Jr.: Thank you, Mr. Hubbard.

We probably would be in favour of providing a more detailed list of concerns in written form at a later date.

The concern over the change in legal status and capacity as well as concerns about the other legislation that's being proposed, the land management act, are not necessarily about the actual acts themselves but rather suspicion about the motivation. We're under the impression that the Department of Indian Affairs has grown frustrated with the ongoing litigation after years and years.

While some of these changes appear to empower first nations and to provide opportunities for economic development, they also appear to limit the government's legal liability. Changing the legal capacity of lands, as an example, would allow for first nations to sue and be sued in a way they couldn't before. Given the lack of overall capacity we're facing, we find that very uncertain and difficult to deal with. The same would go for the land.

The Chair: Thank you.

We have time for a two-minute round, and we would like to allow time for closing remarks.

Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: You aren't the first person to have mentioned the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. It's one of the most comprehensive royal commissions ever undertaken. I believe only four of the recommendations have even been partially implemented.

Is it your view that Bill C-7 could have been crafted from recommendations from the royal commission, rather than being in the new package we see on the table today? Would that have been a better route for government to take?

¸ (1445)

Mr. Cliff Atleo, Jr.: I would have to agree. I think we see, not only with this legislation but also at the treaty table, that there is a reluctance to address issues such as justice, fairness, and equality in any real way because of the litigious nature of our society. There is such an overwhelming concern by the lawyers who help develop policy. For example, a key issue at the treaty table is that compensation is not going to be addressed, because if you say it is going to be addressed that means you must have done something wrong, and we can't afford that in a legal situation.

So there are some glaring issues with the RCAP report that would have been too difficult for the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to actually deal with in a real way.

Mr. Pat Martin: It's been pointed out, and you made the point too, that Bill C-7 is on us now because progress in negotiations has been frustratingly slow. I guess I'm trying to get to the issue of bargaining in good faith.

If after sitting at the bargaining table trying to achieve consensus one party says “We're getting tired of this, I'm going to impose what our package was from the very start”, is that bargaining in good faith, by anybody's definition?

Mr. Cliff Atleo, Jr.: The mandate issue has always been a challenge for first nations across the country. It hasn't changed substantially for about 30 years, and it's hard to say whether it will in the next 30 years, but we're certainly hopeful that it will.

The Chair: Thank you.

We have time, so we will invite you to make closing remarks. I'll take this opportunity to apologize to you for the interruption, which you should not have been subjected to.

Mr. Nelson Keitlah: Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman.

We would again like to express our involvement in what we know is going to be fruitful and meaningful to everyone.

Thank you.

The Chair: Cliff, do you have a few words? No.

I thank you very much. Your testimony will be referred to and will help us do a better job.

Next is Kwakiutl District Council--and you will correct me, I'm sure--Chairman James Wilson. Welcome. I see that you are accompanied by Mr. Micha Menczer.

We have 45 minutes together. We invite you to make a presentation, followed by questions and answers. Please proceed.

Mr. James Wilson (Chairman, Kwakiutl District Council): Mr. Chair, I was just telling my children at the back that I don't know what happens when I come to these things. My mouth gets dry and it all moves to my hands. Just give me a few minutes to put myself in order here.

Thank you, committee members, for hearing us. I'm James Wilson. I'm the chairman of the Kwakiutl District Council in the north of Vancouver Island.

Our packages were distributed to you. I just wanted to briefly go through the documents in there. Our organization has been in existence for over 30 years. There's a brief history in here.

I want to draw your attention to the middle of the document. If you just open the booklet right at the middle, there's a map showing where our member nations are located. The insert lists the names of the nations we represent; I'm speaking for them today. I draw that to your attention. I won't go into any great detail. It's there for your leisurely nightly reading.

As I said, we've been in existence for 30 years. When we started out, we got together somewhat in reaction to the 1969 white paper. Our leaders saw the importance of meeting together. In order to receive any types of funds or recognition, they had to become a separate society. The name, the Kwakiutl District Council, comes from the name of the agency, which was the Kwakiutl Agency. That's how the name began.

The Kwakiutl District Council actually represents nations from the north. And in the south, around the 50th parallel, around the Campbell River area, are four nations of Laich-Kwil-Tach. They are not Kwakiutl bands; they're Laich-Kwil-Tach, but they're in this formation of the tribal council. The name, as I said, was taken just for convenience of the department and others, that we would take a well-known name.

As for my personal history, I'm from the Cape Mudge Band, which is on the southern tip of Quadra Island. My father is from the Haxwamis Nation. You won't find it anywhere in your documents, and your researchers aren't going to find it, because they were forced to amalgamate with Gilford Island in 1948. All of a sudden they disappeared.

That's happened to many, many of our nations, especially where I'm from. For convenience, they amalgamated people and moved them into urban centres--Willard Bay, Campbell River, Port Hardy. That has now become a problem, because everybody wants to repatriate their homelands and set up their own governance system apart from the Indian Act.

There are some of our nations under the hereditary system. They remain under the hereditary system. You heard from Chief John Smith last evening. He spoke to you about some of the current concerns of the hereditary system. While John is not in our tribal council, he's our neighbour and he's involved with the Laich-Kwil-Tach people in the Campbell River area at the treaty table.

¸ (1450)

There are many complexities involved here. The 27 tribes in our area have now been reduced to 15 with the amalgamation. We speak different languages and we're only 60 miles apart. Thirty kilometres to the south there's a whole different system with the Coast Salish. I mean, we were traditional enemies. But we've had our treaties with both the Coast Salish and the Kwakiuts to the north.

If you ask anybody, if you asked Miles Richardson if the Haida know who the Kwakiutl people are, he would say.... As a matter of fact, when I first met Miles he was with some other councillors in the Skidegate Band Council, and we heard the same stories of the last war between the Laich-Kwil-Tach people and the Haida in the Campbell River area.

I'm getting off the topic here.

In your booklet there's a big thick document called “Constitution of Kwakiutl League of Nations”. This is a concept paper that Dr. Daisy Sewid-Smith worked on with us in the mid-1990s. When I say us, I'm referring to the Cape Mudge Band. They were involved in self-government negotiations with Canada during the Mulroney government and then with the Liberal government. They never did finish, for whatever reason--policy shifts, change in government. We never did conclude that. But this is the type of work people are looking at. It's amalgamating the traditional with the contemporary in trying to meet everybody's needs.

Will this work under the First Nations Governance Act? No, it won't. And we'll go into the reasons why. The other documents included in here also state why it doesn't work as well as some of our recommendations, but we'll get to that. I'm sure you'll all get to it when you read your documents, but I want to move on here so you can ask your questions.

Included in this package as well are two papers by Micha Menczer, my colleague. They are a legal analysis as well as a paper called “The Aboriginal Right of Self-Government and the First Nations Governance Act: Can They Co-exist?” And some of the things I'll be saying and some of the questions you'll have are answered in these two documents as well.

On the right-hand side of the booklet there's a summary of the bigger document, the concept paper. If you have the opportunity, I'd like to refer to that right now. On the front page is the system as it is now, under the Indian Act. And if you turn the page, this is the system that would be run combining the traditional with the contemporary. This is a clan system with its own set of appeal mechanisms and dispute resolution mechanisms. And the paper itself goes into detail on what each one of these components means. The third page is a summary of the duties and responsibilities of the officers of each of the different components in this traditional model we have been looking at.

Having said that, I'd like to quickly move on. I'm sure my five or ten minutes is coming to an end.

¸ (1455)

The Chair: We have lots of time. Take the time you need.

Mr. James Wilson: Okay. Thank you.

I was talking about the complexities in our area, and it is really difficult to come up with something that's going to work for everybody. The only way it's going to work is if they do it themselves and have an ownership of the product they're working on.

“One size fits all” does not work. It won't even work in the 27 tribes where I'm from. Our tribal council began with 15 members; it's now 10, and for different purposes it's fractioned even to five, five, and five in different alliances, because of the system we've been forced into, the forming of a separate society, living under the rules of the provincial Societies Act. It doesn't work.

We've been adapting, evolving, and making things work to the best of our ability, but in something as important as this, one size does not fit all.

I don't know if anybody's made reference in the presentations before you over the last several weeks to the Harvard Project in the United States. There was also a paper done for the AFN by Professors Stephen Cornell, Miriam Jorgenson, and Joseph Kalt. I throw that in.

¹ (1500)

The Chair: The author did testify before this committee, but we certainly will recognize and appreciate it.

Mr. James Wilson: Thank you.

It's very difficult to get all the issues out, so I took the shotgun approach and put in as much as I could for your reading enjoyment. It's very easy to read, believe me. I'll leave Micha's phone number with you in case you have any questions.

I'd now like to turn our attention to the governance act itself and to bring up some points that are raised in the paper I wrote. I'd like to highlight why the First Nations Governance Act is not consistent with the KDC version of self-government.

I don't know what to say about the consultation approach. The approach that was taken was not very good. In no way did it respect the first nations, and it didn't respect the inherent right to self-government. Unfortunately, this is an attitude that governments provincially and federally have taken over the last hundred and some-odd years. They simply won't recognize it.

We've been studied to death. There is a reference in these papers to the Penner report of twenty years ago. It's quite relevant now. There isn't any political will to follow through on these. It's great to study the aboriginal people and find out what's wrong, but there isn't any political will to implement any of those reports. There's the RCAP report of 12 years ago. There are 300 pages in that report alone dealing with recommendations on self-government and the governance of aboriginal people. We have the Senate report. None of that has been acted on.

Then we have the court cases. You will have heard of the Delgamuukw case, the Campbell case, and all of the others. It's exciting to read some of the things the Supreme Court judges are saying. The best approach to this is to sit down and negotiate and all parties give up something and come to a deal. None of that has ever happened. It's easier for governments to simply sit back, dig into their coffers, and tax everybody more so that they can go to court and drag this on and on. In a case that took place a couple of years ago, the judge said that the provincial government had to pay for the case that was coming before him. Maybe the answer is to hit them in the pocketbook.

I could spend a couple of days just sitting here and dialoguing with you. I have to try to keep on track here.

Please nudge me, Micha, when I go off track.

Another reason this isn't going to work is that the legislative model is one of delegation of authority rather than recognition of the first nation rights. The proposed legislation sets minimum standards and grants limited powers to aboriginal peoples.

¹ (1505)

The act makes federal law paramount beyond what is required for proper relationships with first nations. It also retains considerable powers for the federal government, for which, if we acted on all the other studies and court cases, there shouldn't be a need. There shouldn't be a need for the minister to retain all the discretionary powers he has in the act.

There is reference in some of the findings down in the United States to situations where the one-size-fits-all kind of solution doesn't work, especially when it's not consistent with the traditional governance system of the nation, or in this case—in the U.S.—of the tribes. This approach simply doesn't work.

I have to refer back to the consultation process. When the minister and others say “we spoke with 10,000 people”, well, 10,000 out of a million isn't that many people. When we're talking about things like this—you all are in politics—you know that the people who want to speak the most are the people who are angry. So the findings, in my view, were skewed, and they didn't come to do a proper consultation with us.

I don't know what the answer is. It's something we're definitely going to have to work out together, and while my mind is jumping to try to get to a conclusion, I'm sure I made some recommendations on how I would suggest it if I hadn't been so nervous.

I would like to make some concluding remarks on some of the recommendations and move to some of your questions.

The approach we would like to see for recognition of self-government would involve these features:

—a proper negotiation forum representing the desire to create a true government relationship should be put in place;

—adequate funding for first nations for education, and support and development of their self-government regimes, which involve education and learning of historical political systems of Kwakiutl and N'Quatqua-speaking people;

—proper funding for implementation of any new agreement on self-government;

—formal recognition by the federal government, through legislation, for a treaty that gives due recognition to the inherent right of self-government, rather than a delegated and contingent model reflected in the act;

—proper respect for first nations governance regimes, without minimum standards and paramountcy rules unilaterally developed by Canada.

Is there anything else, Micha?

My colleague would like to add to our brief presentation.

The Chair: Mr. Menczer.

Mr. Micha Menczer (Kwakiutl District Council): “Brief” will be the order of the day.

There has been a lot of detailed work done by the Kwakiutl District Council. It's been provided to you in writing in the documentation, which the council felt was a better way, given the importance and significance of this.

I just want to highlight a couple of specific examples, adding to what Mr. Wilson has said. I think the basic starting point was a proper method of recognition of what aboriginal peoples believe is their inherent right, and that's of self-government, and which the courts, as we've seen increasingly through cases such as Delgamuukw and Campbell and a whole series that the research paper outlines, have given greater recognition to. As well, there's the royal commission report, which I'm sure you're very well aware of; the Penner report of twenty years ago—this standing committee's report on self-government—which called for clear recognition in legislation of an aboriginal right of self-government; and, finally, the recent Senate report of 2000, which again talked about clearer recognition. None of that is reflected in this legislation.

If this committee is looking for a mechanism to have a better working relationship with first nations, I think there's a starting point. When you look at the purpose of this legislation and the preamble, they talk only about a “policy” of the federal government to recognize this. It's a very simple matter, technically, as you all know, and your staff knows, to simply say that the federal government does recognize this and the legislation is established to facilitate the implementation of it. That's the kind of approach the KDC is looking for.

When you really start at the beginning with the purpose clause, clause 3, you don't get very far into the legislation before it says.... I've addressed the preamble; it talks about Canada's policy of recognizing the inherent right. Well, if Parliament is speaking through legislation, our recommendation was that it simply say Canada does recognize the inherent right. It's not about a policy; it's about what the legislation speaks to.

Similarly, clause 3—again, the “purposes” clause, which is where the first nations start to look at what this is about—talks about providing “effective tools of governance on an interim basis pending the negotiation and implementation of the inherent right of self-government...”.

That wording suggests that Canada views self-government rights as contingent, as requiring negotiation before they exist. That is not what the courts have been saying; it's not what the Penner report of twenty years ago said; it's not what the royal commission said; it's not what the Senate committee said; and it is not what the first nations have been saying. So at the beginning, it looks as if this legislation is getting off on the wrong foot.

Jim has talked to you about the delegated model. That flows from getting off on the wrong foot. If you establish legislation that has this framework, all you can provide is a delegation, whereas if you establish legislation that is of recognition language, then you create an environment where you can provide the formal recognition through Parliament—which is how Canada speaks—and provide first nations a mechanism to implement it within certain boundaries. I don't think any one of Jim's constituents is speaking about an exercise of governance or powers without limitations and without a cooperative relationship with Canada. But this legislation doesn't even set the table for that discussion.

One specific example is when you talk about elections. The concept paper developed by Daisy Sewid-Smith is a very important document. She's a very learned scholar of traditional ways and has been honoured with a doctorate of laws and is very well respected across the country, and in British Columbia she is very well known. She was asked to look at these traditional systems as well as the modern needs and come up with a mechanism—a concept paper—as a basis for discussion. It does that in some very pragmatic ways. It has spawned a lot of good discussion.

But one of the things you've heard from Mr. Wilson and I'm sure you are aware of is that there are a lot of systems of hereditary leadership and traditional leadership particularly active in this part of the country, where there was a strong form of governance before the Europeans arrived.

¹ (1510)

You may be aware of the potlatch system. It's described a little more. This was more than what's seen on the surface as feasting. It was a method of economy, of setting economic relationships. It was a method of passing on political titles. There was a whole series of things combined in that.

If you look at the governance act, they give some recognition to custom-elect leadership selection codes, but they require these rules to be passed in election codes, which means there has to be a vote. You cannot have your customary rules unless there is a vote. Secondly, your code has to have appeal mechanisms for leadership selection, and they have to be done within two years.

This is not at all consistent. How do you have a vote on a hereditary leadership system? They are completely inconsistent. How do you say there must be an appeal of leadership selection when it's hereditary? How do you put a two-year timeframe on it?

That's just one small example of how someone reading this at first blush would say “Well, it's very good; they recognize custom elections.” But when you actually see how that will impact on the hereditary system, it can't. It's hollow recognition.

I have a few very small comments. Questions are really where it lies.

The act does recognize some greater powers for first nations in the power sections that you've gone over, and it has some greater enforcement powers. But when you work in the communities and you see what's needed, there's no judicial context for its enforcement. A lot of first nations, either individually or at the tribal council level, look to their own judicial systems to deal with violations of their law. There's nothing in this legislation about that. It sends it into the provincial system.

There is a mechanism in the Indian Act, section 107, that deals with appointments of justices of the peace and has been used to appoint first nations representatives to adjudicate their own laws and violations of them, which I think is a very constructive mechanism. But as you know, there has been a moratorium on those appointments.

So first nations are seeing an act that talks about governance but gives them no power to adjudicate their own laws and their own governance systems.

You hear a lot of discussion about recognition of greater jurisdiction in child welfare. There's nothing in there about that. You hear discussion about gaming being before the courts, and greater first nation control of that as a tool to drive an engine of a struggling economy in places. There's nothing in there about that.

So there's been some expansion, but there are some fundamental areas that first nations have been talking about for years--before the royal commission, before parliamentary and Senate committees--and they're not in the bill.

I have a last comment or two, and I'm in the same boat as Jim: we could spend a lot of time on this, but that's why you have the paper.

There still is a tremendous amount of discretionary power with the minister for intervention--I believe that's in clause 10--and when you look at that power, it's very ill-defined. It talks about “a significant breach”. Well, there's complete discretion with the minister to decide when that occurs. There's also talk that when that happens, the minister can impose remedial measures, all the way from something agreed on, to co-management, to third-party intervention. But there's again complete discretion as to what remedial measures are taken.

So when a first nation looks at this package, in many cases they're worse off than under existing funding agreements or health transfer agreements, where these are better defined. It is very difficult, when you look at the law in terms of challenging a ministerial exercise of discretion, to challenge that. So a minister determines when there's been a breach and the type of measure that can be taken, and there's very little a first nation can do with that.

That's not a path to a better relationship of governance. First nations are not saying there has to be no accountability, etc., but it's how that's accomplished.

So those are a few examples.

¹ (1515)

The Chair: I'll have to interrupt. I won't ask you what profession you are in, but if that's a short statement....

Mr. Micha Menczer: No, those are the last comments, but I felt a few examples--

The Chair: I understand. You will have another opportunity, but I would like to have some time for questions from members.

We have about fifteen minutes. We'll do five-minute rounds. Who will go?

Mr. Chatters.

Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian Alliance): It's an interesting concept, and in trying not to be partisan, one has to recognize that this isn't our party's bill. We've been charged with the task here to come out, do a consultation process, draft amendments, and try to make the bill better, and I'm certainly trying to participate in that process.

At the very beginning, when I was elected to the House of Commons ten years ago and the government spelled out its recognition of the aboriginal inherent right to self-government in the Liberal Party red book, it seemed hollow to me. For the last three days or whatever we've been working on this, it's certainly been brought home to us as a committee that if the government today recognizes the aboriginal inherent right to self-government, why are we here? Because if they in fact did, there's nothing to negotiate.

Quite frankly, what we should be sitting around here talking and negotiating about is the fiduciary obligation; that is, how we're going to revenue-share and how we're going to provide the financial resources for you to sustain your self-government. It really does seem curious to me that we are in fact doing what we're doing, given what the government has said they believe, but they don't really seem to be doing what they say they believe they're doing.

I'd like to move past that and maybe ask for a comment or two on how you would see us working through what the real issue is, which is the fiduciary obligation and the resources to implement self-government.

¹ (1520)

Mr. James Wilson: I certainly have to agree with you in reference to the red book and the policy of recognizing the inherent rights to self-government. We lived through those commitments and the change in policy, and to a great extent we were excited to hear that statement. But in reality, on the ground and in negotiations, nothing really happened. If anything, it clouded the issues.

When I say “we”, I'm talking.... Micha had worked for the Wei Wai Kai First Nation, which is the Cape Mudge Band, band number 623. I'm 6230022701. Nobody else except for some of the people behind me have numbers like those. Anyway--

Mr. David Chatters: I wouldn't agree with that. I live by a number with the government myself. I think we all are saddled with that.

Mr. James Wilson: Maybe Micha can.... I have to put my mind around it.

Mr. David Chatters: I think we have to start with a recognition--and the chairman alluded to it a few minutes ago--that the Government of Canada now does in fact transfer some $10 billion to aboriginal services and programs in this country, and our budget yesterday probably added another $1 billion to it. I don't want to be totally critical of the government, saying that they aren't moving forward or trying to move forward. The capacity of the Government of Canada to implement the royal commission tomorrow probably isn't there.

Those are the things we need to be talking about, not whether or not your governance structures are right. Those are your business. You have that, and the government says you have that. We're not talking about the right things. I just wanted your view on that, more in general terms, perhaps.

Mr. James Wilson: Well, I always have trouble when people start quoting about the billions and billions of dollars that are going to first nations; nobody seems to know how that's defined. You guys are all here, and there's money being spent on this process. Is the cost of this whole process being attributed to spending on aboriginal people?

It's easy to say no, it's not, but it all gets lumped in, and I'm sure Mr. Chatters sometime along the line will take that figure and say, well, this was.... Anyway, we won't go down that road again. We don't want you guys arguing.

The Chair: I can tell you that there is a budget for committees to do legislation and travel, and it is from that budget that this comes. There's no doubt about that. But it doesn't mean that other things that appear to be on their own are not from that budget; I'm not saying that.

Mr. Martin.

¹ (1525)

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

Thank you, Mr. Wilson, for an interesting presentation. I agree with most of the points you made. I wish I had a copy of your presentation. Maybe by the time I leave we can arrange for one; I would like to take one home with me if we can arrange that.

You went through the bill in some detail, and you made some recommendations that the preamble should be phrased differently. You made some comments that the purpose clause should be phrased differently. I concur with both of your points there.

In the original recommendations from the Assembly of First Nations, from Vice-Chief Satsan, that's where they plug in the non-derogation clause. Would it be your recommendation that...? In fact, there are three places in their recommendations where there is reference to a non-derogation clause. Would you comment, telling us your view of when and where such a clause should be introduced?

Mr. Micha Menczer: The purpose of a non-derogation clause is also discussed in one of the papers. And as the chairman recognized, I am a lawyer. It's commented on in the two papers I prepared. I think that was seen as being in addition to the preamble and the purpose clause.

A non-derogation clause simply shows an intention not to take away from anything. It doesn't really grant anything or give more formal recognition. Mr. Chatters was right: this isn't about granting; it's about formal recognition by Canada. Canada speaks through legislation.

I believe the AFN position is, and certainly the KDC position, is that all three would make this bill stronger. Clearly, the purpose, in our view, has been skewered. It sends the wrong message to first nations right off the bat.

Mr. Pat Martin: I was interested in your comments too that if anything, Bill C-7 augments or enhances the minister's authority in places rather than cedes actual authority to first nations. Can you expand on that somewhat?

Mr. Micha Menczer: Right now, particularly on the financial management and accountability issue, funding is done to first nations through agreements--fiscal transfer agreements and health transfer agreements. Within those specific agreements there are remedial measures for the minister to take in the event that things go off the rails.

From my experience, not just with KDC but in other communities where I've worked, there are more precise provisions and some safeguards against intervention that's too easy. A mediation step could be built in, or there could be some way for a first nation to question the minister's exercise of discretion in either finding a significant breach or in the measure, without having to institute--and I'll bite my tongue--a large court case. This has been built into some other agreements. It's not a complicated legal or technical tool, but it's missing.

You have absolutely unfettered discretion, except in the most extreme case of bad faith or malfeasance by the minister, in which case you have to start an expensive lawsuit. How are you going to do that if you're already having trouble financially?

Mr. Pat Martin: That's a good point.

With what little time I have left we could talk about the costs associated with the implementation of Bill C-7, whether it's in its current form or as we amend it, hopefully.

A lot of smaller first nations have said that given the burden they already have with their administrative obligations it's going to be a great cost. Money will have to come out of funds for other programs, such as housing or health, to make these changes in the way business is done.

Could you comment on that?

Mr. James Wilson: It is extremely expensive. I speak from experience, being from the Cape Mudge Band, of what Cape Mudge has done over the last several years. As I stated earlier, they were involved in negotiations with Canada for a self-government agreement, a delegated model that they were going to use to set the framework so that when the treaty was completed the framework would have been there. That fell through. Then they tried to pick up the pieces again and work to complete some of the things that were in those discussions, one of which was an election code. It was very expensive to put that together. It was time-consuming, and then once we got it there was an election called and we were fast approaching the election date and the Indian Act said it had to be done by such and such a date, but the people in the meantime already voted in the referendum.

That whole process was expensive. To try to track down our people all over North America to inform them of the vote we were having was time-consuming. The election was called, and to make a long story short, the minister signed the code five days before the actual election that we had voted on in the referendum, and it passed the Indian Act regulations for an election. We were in limbo ther, and nobody knew if the existing council was actually in power or not. The bureaucracy was hounding and barking at us, saying they were going to come in and take over our office because we missed the deadline. It was utter chaos, and the Privy Council signed it off two days before the election.

One of the fears I have, even coming before this committee, is retribution from the minister and the bureaucrats for speaking out. It wasn't a very good example of how things should be working.

I don't want to take too much time, but Cape Mudge has been involved in self-government negotiations since 1969. They went to a vote in 1972 and they missed the vote by one and a half people. All we could get out of this whole thing was a code, which, by the way, has to be re-ratified through another referendum under Bill C-7.

¹ (1530)

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Hubbard.

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

Probably, Chief, our discussions today with you and Mr. Menczer have brought out a good number of very significant points.

First of all, Mr. Chair, I think we have to be very careful of numbers.

I know, Mr. Chatters, you weren't misleading, certainly, but I think we should look at that $10 billion or $11 billion and make sure we're not giving that message. I think it's probably a little bit exaggerated.

We also want to look at the point that was just mentioned in terms of trying to maintain a roll call. We have under the proposed legislation a 25% clause in terms of ratifying, approving. As Chief James has mentioned, if half your people live off-reserve--and they could be anywhere--they're involved in a very expensive process of trying to maintain addresses, knowing where to send letters, having votes come back. This section of the legislation dealing with the 25% approval should probably be looked at.

Also, I was thinking while you were talking there about redress. I know you've submitted some good information here, and I want to commend you. Your constitution, for example, seems to cover a lot of the things Bill C-7 talks about.

But redress is another part--and probably, Mr. Menczer, you have mentioned that in terms of your....

It appears, Chief James, you're also saying that redress should be a two-way street. For many years, I was principal of quite a large high school. You were called “the man in the middle” when you had a job like mine. I think in terms of getting money from various sources and trying to see that it goes to the proper places, the man in the middle sometimes has a very difficult job to do, because everybody expects something. But does it come for you to offer it?

Probably, Mr. Chair, we should look at this redress in terms not only of people at the bottom looking for redress, but people in the middle who might want redress in terms of how the minister and DIAND, the department, is working with the chief and council.

I certainly appreciate that you had a lot of good points, Chief. You're covering a lot of topics. We certainly appreciate this. We'll look at them and hopefully try to think of some ideas.

The other big point you're making is that you think the legislation is too paternalistic. It doesn't deal in terms of cooperation but more in terms of somebody saying “This is what has to be done”.

So maybe the tone of some of this, Mr. Chair, has to be looked at too.

Thank you.

¹ (1535)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

This concludes this part of the hearing. I would have liked to have given you time for closing remarks, but the presentation was 30 minutes long.

Mr. James Wilson: I think I might have some time left.

The Chair: Are you a lawyer? Okay, I'll believe you. You have one minute.

Mr. James Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

There's one thing I have to apologize for. When I sat down and introduced myself, I neglected to acknowledge the Snuneymuxw people and to thank them for having these sessions here in their territory.

While I have 12 seconds left, I just want to acknowledge my children, who are sitting in the back.They are living here and going to school. Thank you. They've lived through a lot, with me being away at things like this.

Thanks again. You never know, maybe I'll see you in Prince Rupert.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Which children are yours? Let's have them stand up.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I have a lot of respect for lawyers. Don't take offence from our teasing.

We're now into the panel part of our day. We welcome, from the Aboriginal Neighbours, Gloria Cope, for ten minutes.

Ms. Gloria Cope (Aboriginal Neighbours): Thank you very much.

I too want to acknowledge the Snuneymuxw people. I live on their land, and I live a very good life on their land.

I want to begin today by saying good afternoon and I also want to tell you a little story before I begin my program. It goes back a number of years.

I was at the Calgary airport with a first nation Salish woman and she and I were looking in the gift store and we were looking at the greeting cards. We saw on the greeting cards western cowboys, Indians, etc. She said to me, “Gloria, I've always had a soft spot in my heart for the cowboy”. I said “I've always had a soft spot in my heart for the Indians”. She said “I'm talking about the Indian”.

Aboriginal Neighbours wish to thank you for this opportunity to appear before you today. My name is Gloria Cope. I'm speaking today on behalf of my group, Aboriginal Neighbours. Under the auspices of the Anglican Church of Canada, this group was formed in 1996 as a diocesan response to the residential school abuses. Our purpose is to walk with our neighbours as they seek healing and to foster new relationships between native and non-native people in the church and community at large. We are blessed therefore that our membership is made up of both native and non-native people who know that a good relationship is vital for the well-being of Canada.

After six years, the value of our groundbreaking work is gaining recognition in the Anglican Church across Canada. Through this work, we have become sensitive to aboriginal issues and the effect that past legislation has had on first nations. It is apparent that the legislation under consideration today poses a new threat to their well-being. While many concerns have been expressed here today, I would like it noted at this time that we, Aboriginal Neighbours, share these same concerns. They do address the implications that lurk in and behind the legal phrases of Bill C-7.

However, what these concerns do not stress firmly enough is the fact that despite numerous commissions and studies, Supreme Court rulings, statements promoting fair and transparent negotiations, there has been no real change in government policy towards first nations people since the Indian Act of 1876, which forced first nations into a subservient role within the state. Indeed, there is still a huge divide between the peoples of Canada or between first nations and those who have had the privilege to settle on their land.

Nobel prize laureate Aung San Suu Kyi of Burma, in a videotaped message to the United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women, in 1995 spoke the following words:

...the human race is not divided into two opposing camps of good and evil. It is made up of those who are capable of learning and those who are incapable of doing so. Here I'm not talking of learning in the narrow sense of acquiring an academic education, but of learning as the process of absorbing those lessons in life that enable us to increase peace and happiness in our world.

I have learned from my first nation friends that this kind of learning requires us to rethink what we already think we know. Einstein once remarked that nothing can change until we change our thinking. Uncomfortable as it may be, we especially need to recognize that what we are really dealing with here in this instance is a massive underlying prejudice. If you cast your minds back to the 1960s, you will recognize the kind of change I am talking about. The civil rights and feminist movements challenged racial and gender prejudice in the western world. That was a radical and uncomfortable time, but it changed our thinking.

¹ (1540)

I'm sure at least some of you did that too. That work is not yet complete, but it was a good beginning. It's that kind of change that needs to happen in our relationship with our first nations brothers and sisters.

Our challenge is to learn to listen with new ears. In order to move forward we need to right old wrongs. To do that we need to take the time to really understand what those are, not from our own present perspective, but with new ears, from the first nations' perspective.

This is vitally important and essential. We can never build a new Canada on a foundation of injustice and distrust. For more than a hundred years our colonial arrogance has shut out the voices of these people who speak from a perspective other than our own. Their patience with us has been astounding. But it will not last forever. To be sure, they will never submit, and neither should they.

My own thinking on this issue has only changed in the last 12 years or so, but that is another story. For those of you who are thinking I am wasting your time with idealistic nonsense, I challenge you to consider the roots of the problems in countries like Ireland and Israel. What you see in those countries today is the result of their failure to step beyond their own perspective in order to look at their shared history from the opposite side of the fence.

Canada has until this year been respected in the world community as a country that values power, peace, and reconciliation. So don't let us fail to seize this moment of opportunity; it has global implications. We live in the moment of opportunity right now in which we can create a harmony of cultures.

We don't have to be rocket scientists to do this. We just need to get to know each other, to listen to each other as equals, or as first nations refer to themselves, nation to nation.

Only when our people know and trust each other will we be able to pool our two wisdoms as the foundation on which to build the future of Canada. This has not happened, and until it does Bill C-7 must be withdrawn.

It is our considered opinion that Bill C-7 would be detrimental to first nations people. Therefore, Aboriginal Neighbours recommends that the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, which was a government initiative, be adopted and implemented in consultation with first nations. After five years of difficult and exhaustive consultations and millions of dollars, the results were a fair and comprehensive reflection of the problems faced by our first nations neighbours.

Aboriginal Neighbours wish to thank you again for this opportunity to appear before you today.

¹ (1545)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

There is not enough time for a round, but perhaps you will allow one short comment.

It hurts a little bit that you think some of us think you are wasting our time. Some of us who have the seniority--from all parties--to be on exotic committees such as foreign affairs and travel the world are on this committee because we are committed and sincere about the work we are doing.

Ms. Gloria Cope: I appreciate that and I know that. I watched you here today and yesterday, and I know it mustn't be easy to sit here hour after hour. But this is the message I want you to take back to Ottawa to Robert Nault, who I listened to this morning when he was being interviewed by Don Newman on Politics. He has this in the bag, as far as he's concerned, and that really upset me. So you have a strong message to take back. I wish you well.

The Chair: It may comfort you and others to know that this is not a committee of the government, it's not a committee of the minister, and it's not a committee of the Prime Minister. This is a committee of the House of Commons. The person who has directed us to do this work is Peter Milliken, the Speaker of the House.

Thank you very much.

Ms. Gloria Cope: Okay, sir.

Now I have these. Does anyone want them?

The Chair: Give it to the clerk. The clerk will translate and distribute it.

I welcome, from Malaspina University College, Dr. J.R. Wytenbroek, chair of the human rights committee, Malaspina Faculty Association. Please come forward. We have ten minutes together.

While you are preparing, I will tell the others in the room that for those of you who have not addressed the committee and are not scheduled to address the committee, we will be taking two-minute comments from you immediately following this presentation.

Dr. J. R. Wytenbroek (Chair of the Human Rights Committee, Malaspina Faculty Association, Malaspina University-College): Thank you.

It's a pleasure to be here today, and I'm grateful for this chance to speak with you. You have a copy of my brief, but I'll be using excerpts of what you have in front of you, not the whole thing.

My name is Lynn Wytenbroek. I am the human rights chair of the Malaspina University-College Faculty Association, and therefore my focus today is going to be on the human rights aspects of Bill C-7.

In his acclaimed novel about colonialism in Africa, Heart of Darkness, Joseph Conrad presents Kurtz, a colonial favourite who has committed unspeakable atrocities against the African people. At one point Kurtz exclaims “Exterminate all the brutes!” when he's speaking about the Africans. As he lies dying, Kurtz's last words to the riverboat captain are “The horror! The horror!” When Marlow returns to Europe and Kurtz's financée asks what his last words were, he diplomatically yet brutally and truthfully says, “Your name”.

In the name of the European-based society that predominates here in Canada, for more than 200 years the federal government along with other institutions in Canada has committed repeated horrific acts of colonial oppression against first nations people. There were attempts to deal with the Indian problem, as it was called some time ago, by exterminating the people themselves deliberately through the distribution of smallpox-infested blankets in an act of racial genocide. There was inadvertent neglect, and there was also the agenda of assimilation through cultural genocide with programs such as the residential schools, designed to eliminate first nations' traditions, religions, languages, and culture.

The federal government has stopped trying to deliberately exterminate first nations people directly and has closed its residential schools, for which we're all grateful. While churches and other institutions seek reconciliation with first nations, the government has introduced Bill C-7, which stands in direct contradiction to the recognition in the larger society that first nations culture and socio-political processes are different from those of the larger Canadian society but are still valid.

By trying to implement in a new way policies of socio-political genocide, Bill C-7 flies in the face of several UN documents regarding human rights to which Canada is either a signatory or a contributor. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states in article 22 that everyone is entitled to realization of the “economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity”.

The United Nations Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples clarifies this fundamental human right when it begins with the affirmation of “the rights of all peoples to be different, to consider themselves different, and to be respected as such”. This means that indigenous people are, among other things, to be allowed to govern themselves in a manner that is particular to their cultural norms, not the norms imposed upon them by outside peoples or agencies.

Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states that all peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status. It's precisely these provisions for autonomy Bill C-7 threatens to eliminate. Further, article 7 of the same draft declaration speaks strongly against genocide of any form:

Indigenous peoples have the collective and individual right not to be subject to ethnocide and cultural genocide, including...Any form of assimilation or integration by other cultures or ways of life imposed on them by legislative, administrative or other measures;

Bill C-7, again, does precisely what article 7 prohibits. It imposes upon first nations a uniform governance structure that ignores their own very varied governance structures, and it requires them to integrate into the predominant model of Canadian political structures at the municipal level. It allows neither adequate time nor resources for individual variations to be proposed to that model. And even if that goal is accomplished, it still requires a degree of assimilation first nations have repeatedly stated is not acceptable to them.

¹ (1550)

This descent into neocolonialism in the 21st century is unconscionable. Bill C-7 must be dropped completely and the recommendations of the 1996 Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples must be implemented. The royal commission was an exhaustive endeavour, as my colleague just pointed out. The subsequent results were satisfactory to first nations throughout Canada.

On the issue of governance, the royal commission concludes:

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

That the royal commission report has simply been shelved and ignored while the federal government continues to pursue discriminatory legislation is unacceptable.

The recommendations based on this consideration of human rights are also based on the fact that Canada has been taken to task very recently, in 1999, by the UN Human Rights Committee for its treatment of first nations people and its slowness in developing acceptable solutions to the problems facing first nations people here in Canada. Given the fact that other groups, including first nations within Canada, have complained to that same committee about these issues, Canada needs to really look at its place in the world as regards human rights.

We have an extremely good record in the world for human rights and we are highly respected for it, but that is declining rapidly as our treatment of first nations people does not progress in accordance with these international declarations and agreements.

Recommendations to reinstate ourselves as a nation truly concerned with the human rights of all the people within our borders include the following:

--That the federal government create trust and respect for its process and its intentions towards first nations by acting in good faith through accepting first nations input into their own land, resources, governance, and other rights as embodied in the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples;

--That the federal government recognize that Bill C-7 contravenes not only international agreements on human rights but also that it contravenes Canada's own Constitution;

--That the federal government therefore act to bring the Indian Act and all proposed additions to and emendations of it into line with its own constitution as well as international declarations;

--And finally, that Canada seek to re-establish its place in the world as a leader in human rights advocacy and practice by removing Bill C-7 and by adopting the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, which are acceptable to aboriginal peoples and in line with all UN documents on human rights.

Thank you.

¹ (1555)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

There's a minute and a half if there's someone who has a question of clarification, and we'll allow the same time to other members who want it.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: My question is just along the lines, Doctor, of having the bill propose that the CHRA be applied to an extent consistent with principles engendering equality. Then from there we know as well that there is another part of the bill that does seem to allow the “trumping” of those protections--that is, the needs or the aspirations of an aboriginal government can trump the protections of the CHRA. Do you have any comment on that, or do you think that's a good idea? In other words, please comment on having aboriginal women's rights protected for the first time.

Dr. J. R. Wytenbroek: Yes. Going back again to the royal commission, given the fact that the royal commission was acceptable, after extensive consultation with male and female members of the aboriginal community, I would suggest we use it at least as a starting point. If further discussion around gender issues needs to progress from there, then certainly that should be done. But when it was done in 1996, that commission was accepted generally, so I would fall back to that position at this point.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Martin, do you want to use up the minute?

Mr. Pat Martin: Yes, if I have a minute. Thank you.

I'm interested in your reference to the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Article 7 specifically states that “any form of assimilation or integration...imposed on them by legislative, administrative or other measures....” I can't imagine a more accurate outline of what Bill C-7 seeks to do. Your further comments on that would be appreciated.

Dr. J. R. Wytenbroek: In what little time I have left, simply I think Bill C-7 is doing exactly that. It is contravening their legislative and administrative rights to self-determination and therefore can't be considered as even a possible response in light of this declaration, which Canada has been very actively a part of drafting.

The Chair: Mr. Hubbard.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Thanks, Mr. Chair.

We've seen a very sophisticated document here going to human rights. With that, I take it, Professor, it's more with the philosophy of Bill C-7, is it, than the parts of Bill C-7 that you're concerned? Have you studied it extensively?

Dr. J. R. Wytenbroek: I haven't studied it extensively. I've certainly read through it, or read through the parts of it that pertained to human rights, and it seems to me there are direct statements in Bill C-7—it's not just in principle—for example, that completely contravene exactly that part of the UN draft declaration that we were just discussing.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Mr. Chair, might it be too much to ask her to make a submission, maybe, to the committee specifically in terms of what parts of Bill C-7 are of concern?

The Chair: Can we ask you that you send that to the clerk? It will be distributed.

Dr. J. R. Wytenbroek: I'd be glad to do that.

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

Dr. J. R. Wytenbroek: Thank you.

The Chair: Is Mr. Steve Lawson in the room? No? Therefore we proceed to statements by individuals.

Mr. Frank Brown. No?

Ms. Terri Brown? Not here?

Ms. Lois Powell?

Ms. Shana Robinson?

Ms. Eileen Wttewaall? Okay, please proceed.

º (1600)

Ms. Eileen Wttewaall (As Individual): Thank you to the committee for your work, and to the native people on whose land we are sitting.

I'm Eileen Wttewaall, from Saltspring Island. We're working both with our ecumenical Kairos group as well as the Justice and Reconciliation group.

I've seen, having been here all day and listening to the different presentations, that there's a real clash of world views between generally paternalistic government policies and the idea of cooperation and respect that the first nations keep calling for in every one of their presentations.

One view is based on validating domination of the rights of the individual and the group to be free to use any means to harness the energies of both nature and people for so-called advancement. The other understands that as individuals and communities people are only a small segment of the whole web of life, and that when we destroy part of it, we destroy part of the web that sustains life on our planet.

I see the developments that have happened out of the Indian Act since 1876 and its basis in the expectation that the Indian nations were a terminal society that would naturally disappear as they moved from their native savagery to Canadian civilization. This colonialist attitude of both superiority and assimilationism has been and continues to be the guiding principle behind the periodic changes there have been to the act.

The predictable, strongly negative reactions by first nations peoples to Bill C-7, as far as I'm concerned, effectively disqualify this legislation from being the basis for creating a more just and therefore healthy relationship between first nations people and the federal government. So I see—

The Chair: You must draw to a conclusion. You are over the two minutes.

Ms. Eileen Wttewaall: Okay.

The Chair: Take 10 or 15 seconds.

Ms. Eileen Wttewaall: I see this as an opportunity for the Government of Canada to take a role, in terms of all the things you've been hearing that challenge the federal government to take a role, in saying we don't have to be assimilationist towards our first nations, that we can work with them, and by working with them be a better, stronger country.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Richard Behn.

If there's anyone else, there's still time.

Mr. Richard Behn (Coordinator, Northeast Aboriginal Trappers Society): First, I'd like to acknowledge the providence and blessing of the Creator.

I appreciate the fact that the Snuneymuxw people allowed you folks to conduct your business here in part of their territory.

A few years ago, when the Penner commission was inquiring about the state of affairs of aboriginal people in the country, they started just up the road in a place called Snuneymuxw, or Nanoose.

I'll just take my two minutes and see if I can cram 52 years of experience into that short time.

I'm a product of the residential school system. I was enrolled before my sixth birthday. I spent nine years in the institution and was subjected to the abuses you read about in newspapers and, unfortunately, hear about in court proceedings, which have tried to bring some justice, closure, and sense to what has been perpetrated on the aboriginal people in this country. I know that I'll carry that burden until the end of my time. It's not that it will be a choice of mine, but that's just the way life is. Enough said about that.

I am here representing the North East Aboriginal Trappers Society, which is a loose grouping, if you will, of the headmen of the traditional territories or traplines that exist in northeastern British Columbia.

I was born in Old Fort Nelson.

Our people have been subjected to several acts and pieces of legislation that have destroyed their ability to function in the manner they were trained and raised up in. The traditional protocols for governing ourselves are not something that will be given to us as a gift from somebody else. Self-government only comes by way of having it. If somebody has to give it to you, it isn't self-government.

º (1605)

The Chair: Excuse me, but we're at two and a half minutes. I'll allow you another thirty seconds.

Mr. Richard Behn: I appreciate that, sir.

This committee needs to take the message back loud and clear that Bill C-7 is not going to solve the problem; it is going to exacerbate it. In fact, it's going to cause more damage, and it will not build a consensus among the aboriginal people that we should allow another group of people to determine for us what self-government is.

The Chair: Thank you very much. Your comments are on the record.

Is there anyone who has not had an opportunity and who wishes to speak?

We thank very much everyone who participated. We certainly learned a lot today—there's a lot of emotion— and it will help us in our work. What we have to do is not easy. We know that after we do our work and send Bill C-7 back to the House of Commons, the Indian Act is not going to be a good piece of legislation; it's still going to be a flawed piece of legislation. If we can make it better until we can do better with other means, and ensure self-governance and all the things you talked about, we'll do our best to make it better. But we don't think for one minute that with the work we have been assigned with Bill C-7 we're going to solve all the problems.

Thank you very much. You have a beautiful city. You are beautiful people, and we enjoyed it very much.

The meeting is adjourned.