AANR Committee Meeting

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

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

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

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Monday, March 17, 2003

0855

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

Mr. Nelson Toulouse (Deputy Grand Council Chief, Anishinabek Nation)

0900

0905

0910

Fred Bellefeuille (Self Government Manager, As Individual)

0915

The Chair

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

Fred Bellefeuille

Mr. John Godfrey

Fred Bellefeuille

Mr. John Godfrey

Fred Bellefeuille

Mr. John Godfrey

Mr. Nelson Toulouse

0920

Mr. John Godfrey

Mr. Fred Bellefeuille

Mr. John Godfrey

Mr. Fred Bellefeuille

Mr. John Godfrey

Mr. Fred Bellefeuille

Mr. John Godfrey

Mr. Nelson Toulouse

Mr. John Godfrey

Mr. Nelson Toulouse

The Chair

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

0925

Mr. Nelson Toulouse

Mr. Stan Dromisky

Mr. Nelson Toulouse

Mr. Stan Dromisky

Mr. Nelson Toulouse

Mr. Stan Dromisky

The Chair

Mr. Stan Dromisky

0930

The Chair

Mr. Fred Bellefeuille

The Chair

Mr. Stan Dromisky

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.)

Mr. Nelson Toulouse

Mr. Charles Hubbard

0935

Mr. Nelson Toulouse

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Mr. Nelson Toulouse

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Mr. Nelson Toulouse

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Mr. Nelson Toulouse

The Chair

Mr. John Godfrey

0940

Mr. Nelson Toulouse

Mr. John Godfrey

Mr. Nelson Toulouse

The Chair

Mr. Stan Dromisky

0945

The Chair

Mr. Stan Dromisky

Mr. Nelson Toulouse

The Chair

Mr. Stan Dromisky

Mr. Fred Bellefeuille

Mr. Stan Dromisky

The Chair

0950

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Mr. Nelson Toulouse

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Mr. Nelson Toulouse

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Mr. Nelson Toulouse

0955

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Mr. Nelson Toulouse

The Chair

Mr. Nelson Toulouse

The Chair

1000

Chief Vernon Syrette (Batchewana First Nation)

The Chair

Chief Vernon Syrette

1005

1010

1015

1020

The Chair

Chief Vernon Syrette

1025

1030

The Chair

Chief Vernon Syrette

The Chair

Chief Vernon Syrette

The Chair

Chief Gail Shawbonquit (Whitefish Lake First Nation)

1035

1040

1045

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Chief Gail Shawbonquit

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Chief Gail Shawbonquit

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Chief Gail Shawbonquit

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Chief Gail Shawbonquit

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Chief Gail Shawbonquit

Mr. Charles Hubbard

1050

Chief Gail Shawbonquit

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Chief Gail Shawbonquit

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Chief Gail Shawbonquit

The Chair

Chief Gail Shawbonquit

The Chair

Chief Gail Shawbonquit

Mr. John Godfrey

Chief Gail Shawbonquit

Mr. John Godfrey

Chief Gail Shawbonquit

Mr. John Godfrey

1055

Chief Gail Shawbonquit

Mr. John Godfrey

Chief Gail Shawbonquit

Mr. John Godfrey

Chief Gail Shawbonquit

Mr. John Godfrey

The Chair

Mr. Stan Dromisky

Mr. John Godfrey

Mr. Stan Dromisky

1100

Chief Gail Shawbonquit

Mr. Stan Dromisky

The Chair

Chief Gail Shawbonquit

The Chair

1105

Chief Norman Hardisty (Moose Cree First Nation)

The Chair

Chief Norman Hardisty

1110

1115

1120

The Chair

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

Chief Norman Hardisty

1125

Mr. Reed Elley

Chief Norman Hardisty

Mr. Dave Fletcher (Adviser to the Chief, Moose Cree First Nation)

The Acting Chair (Mr. Stan Dromisky)

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

Chief Norman Hardisty

1130

Mr. Pat Martin

Chief Norman Hardisty

The Chair

Mr. John Godfrey

Chief Norman Hardisty

Mr. Dave Fletcher

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

1135

Chief Norman Hardisty

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Chief Norman Hardisty

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Chief Norman Hardisty

The Chair

Chief Norman Hardisty

The Chair

Mr. Joe Hare (Councillor, M'Chigeeng First Nation)

The Chair

Mr. Alan Corbiere (Research Coordinator, M'Chigeeng First Nation)

1140

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Joe Hare

The Chair

Mr. Alan Corbiere

1150

Mr. Joe Hare

1155

1200

The Chair

Mr. Alan Corbiere

The Chair

Mr. Reed Elley

1205

Mr. Alan Corbiere

Mr. Reed Elley

Mr. Alan Corbiere

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Joe Hare

The Chair

Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.)

Mr. Joe Hare

1210

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources

NUMBER 041

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Monday, March 17, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¾ (0855)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.)): Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the city of greater Sudbury.

We have a few announcements to make before nine o'clock; then we can start the stopwatch right at nine.

We are resuming public hearings on Bill C-7, an act respecting leadership selection, administration, and accountability of Indian bands, and to make related amendments to other acts. Some members are stuck in the fog in Toronto, including Mr. Reed Elley from the Canadian Alliance, Mr. Pat Martin from the NDP, and Ms. Anita Neville from the Liberals. We understand that they will be here around ten o'clock

We have with us today the parliamentary secretary to the minister, Charles Hubbard, member Stan Dromisky, and member John Godfrey. I'm Ray Bonin, chair of the committee.

Our first witnesses are here, so we will proceed. We have one hour together. For the benefit of all those attending, we work on a stopwatch and we'll stick to the schedule to the minute. After your presentation, when we say there is a four-minute round, it means the member can ask a question and that the four minutes include the question and answer. So when politicians take too long asking a question, the victim is the witness. But I usually try to arrange to have closing remarks for you, so you can put in anything you wish.

We welcome, from the Anishinabek Nation, Nelson Toulouse, Deputy Grand Chief, and Fred Bellefeuille, the self-government manager.

I invite you to make your presentation, which will be followed by questions. Please proceed.

Mr. Nelson Toulouse (Deputy Grand Council Chief, Anishinabek Nation): Good morning, Mr. Chairman, committee, and audience.

[Witness speaks in his native language]

My name is Nelson Toulouse. I am the deputy grand chief of the Union of Ontario Indians, and more importantly, I am also a member of the Pike Clan.

It's good to be here today to address the committee. The first thing I want to do is to introduce my partner, Mr. Fred Bellefeuille, who is the self-government adviser.

The process the federal government has undertaken with Bill C-7 is flawed, in our view. The reason I say this is because the process basically was that the minister talked—so it seems—to first nation people. The process in that dialogue is questionable to us, and I think the numbers that came up from the process are questionable. I can't imagine any pollster coming up with any sort of opinion based on those specific numbers. If you look at the overall population of aboriginal people in Canada and the number of respondents, you certainly can't conclude from those respondents and say with any certainty that people are in fact supporting this, because there was just not enough there.

We question the whole process of coming up with these ideas. Again, the process basically comes down to the federal government developing something that will help us. It's very paternalistic. You're going to develop certain provisions regarding even the selection of our own leadership, how we administer ourselves, and financial provisions for accountability purposes. After that, the minister will ask the members of the Parliament of Canada if they think the bill's appropriate to help us. This is flawed and fundamentally wrong.

We believe the process ought to reflect that the first nations leadership are elected by their members and talk to their members. They do. If any leadership is accountable in this country, first nations leadership certainly is. It takes on this task over and over again. The first nations develop what they believe will be helpful to them, and the members of first nations are asked if what is developed will in fact be helpful. Not only are they developing themselves, but after everything is said and done, then they can also ratify as helpful what has been proposed to them.

This is the fundamental problem with Bill C-7 and the process involved in developing it.

¿ (0900)

We do agree on one point, and that is that the act is antiquated. In previous attempts to deal with the Indian Act it has always been defended by the department. It's nice to know that we're on the same side when it comes to the act, that in fact it is old and needs to be changed.

We are making recommendations. The first recommendation is based on a grand council resolution that Bill C-7, the proposed First Nations Governance Act, should not proceed to become an act of Parliament. We further recommend that the tremendous resources that the development and proposed implementation of the act require should be allocated along new lines by first nations in designing and building on existing capacity and governance, as first nations members see appropriate and fitting to their community needs and priorities.

The rationale for these recommendations is the Union of Ontario Indians is currently involved in jurisdictional discussions with the federal government, and we are in the process of finalizing the agreement in principle in governance, those very things we talked about, in terms of actual community discussions, which is happening as we speak. These discussions are in the negotiation process and they are on behalf of our 43 member first nations. The implementation of the final agreement, once we sign the agreement in principle, will involve first nations sharing their successes and policies and processes.

The one thing I've noted throughout these hearings, and maybe even in the initial discussions of the proposed act, was we're framed in such a manner that we're not accountable; we lack leadership, we lack accountability. I don't argue there may be some communities--and I say some--that are encountering some difficulties, but it does not speak to the majority of first nations in Canada, and certainly not the first nations with the Union of Ontario Indians.

We have various policies that have been developed. All first nations, to my knowledge, are accountable. They have systems within their communities by way of general membership meetings, newsletters, release of information to members, and in some instances actual delivery door-to-door. In terms of accountability, certainly those are there. They are proven. They are successful. I think what the proposed act does is ignore those successes. That should not be acceptable.

One of the things we are doing in the agreement in which we are currently involved is governance capacity-building workshops. This process involves community members. It provides real discussion on what community members think governance ought to be. It's a process to separate the politics and the administration. It also allows people to come together and do strategic planning, conflict and dispute resolutions, to name a few.

¿ (0905)

The impact of the bill, as we see, if it's enacted, will diminish or dismiss those successes I just talked about by imposing an alternative federal government approach to improving governance. I think too often our people are researched and surveyed to the point that it creates a lot of confusion. We believe we are in a process where we could clarify a lot of those things and involve community discussion.

When other government processes come into place, it has a tendency to really confuse our first nations people. I know that the one thing we're told is they are tired of being studied. We have files and files of studies that have been done on us. I think we pretty well know what we want. We know what the problems are.

As to the impact of the bill, it again takes away from our own ability to learn and our first nations communities to be involved in a learning process. It will create a dependency. By that I mean the federal government is enacting law because it sees a problem without really consulting us. As I say, there is a problem--a very minute problem, in my view--and here the federal government comes along very paternalistically and says it shall resolve our problems. How does that impact on our leadership? How does that impact on our communities' abilities to resolve?

We believe that the process we've been involved in has created a lot of positive attitude and generated a lot of energy from community people--our members--and I think this process certainly will diminish that, if not wipe it out.

What role can a federal policy have? There's an ability to have a very positive role, and I think that ability is to support our efforts. We believe our efforts are positive and they're being supported by first nations communities. The work we're doing by way of those workshops is constitutional development, law-making in priority areas, developing and recognizing accountability mechanisms that match their community, and developing dispute resolution mechanisms that are truly their own, without predetermining the substance with federal requirements. I think that line underscores what's happening. If someone is well intended to do well for people and involve people in their process, I think it's defeated when you determine what the end result is going to be. This process for change has to be first nations driven.

¿ (0910)

These very things that I hold--the feather--with our people these are very legitimate things. Probably in your eyes it's an eagle feather, but to us it represents more. It represents legitimacy. It represents truth. It represents honesty. For me to hold this eagle feather and say otherwise would be sacrilege. I'd be excommunicated if it were a church.

With that, I conclude my comments. I don't know if my....

Fred Bellefeuille (Self Government Manager, As Individual): Good morning, everybody.

I want to highlight that one of the qualities Bill C-7, the First Nations Governance Act, is held out to include is creating legitimacy. This is one of the most important factors required to make first nation communities economically independent, because the role of government in the first nation community is to create an environment for economic development.

The legislation that's proposed does not lay out the framework to create that environment. The only environment that can be developed properly with the legislation is an environment of dependency, because the legislation is a process that is proposed by a minister who's not a part of the community, and it's proposed to members of Parliament who, although well intentioned, are not part of the community either.

When a process is developed at a community level, it's more apt to be legitimate and it's more apt to have the impact intended. Bill C-7 doesn't do that. The only process that can do it is something driven by the community. A negotiation process is probably the best bet for the federal government to create an environment that will create economic development. Legitimacy is not a quality that can be bought; it's a quality that can only be developed by the community.

That's all.

¿ (0915)

The Chair: This gives us 43 minutes for questions. So we'll have sufficient time.

First we'll go to Mr. Godfrey. Seven minutes. We'll have a second round.

Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): I'm very interested, Mr. Bellefeuille, in your title--self-government manager. Can you tell me a little bit about the nation in the first place and where you fit into the structure and how long this job has existed and what it means?

Fred Bellefeuille: I'm an employee of the Union of Ontario Indians. The Union of Ontario Indians is a corporation that has 43 first nation members of that corporation. The unfortunate thing is they have to use a corporate structure in order to conduct business, when rationally they've been in existence way before the Canada Corporations Act even came into being.

My role at the union is to foster the development of self-governing regimes. I've been involved at the Union of Ontario Indians for three and a half years. In this time we've tried to negotiate an agreement. We've been having great difficulties with federal policy and actually federal process. The minister himself would be the first to admit that when it comes to approval mechanisms for agreements in the federal system, it's very time-consuming. That's my role at the union.

Mr. John Godfrey: I'm reading your brief and I'm just trying to understand how this works. I'm reading this sentence right off the top on page 2: “Our member first nations”--I assume that's the 43 first nations--

Fred Bellefeuille: That's correct.

Mr. John Godfrey: --“are currently sharing these successes through the central negotiation of an Anishinabek Nation governance agreement in principal.” Is that a subset of the 43, the Anishinabek, or how does that work?

Fred Bellefeuille: The Anishinabek Nation is actually.... Nelson would probably be the best to explain that.

As I was saying, there are 43 members of the corporation, the Union of Ontario Indians. That's how they have to conduct business. The reality is that the communities that come together are referred to as the Anishinabek Nation, but nobody recognizes the Anishinabek Nation except for—

Mr. John Godfrey: Except for the 43, more or less.

You might help me out here.

Mr. Nelson Toulouse: It's 43 first nations by convenience. The fact that we're Anishinabek implies something far greater than 43. When we assemble as 43 first nations, is that specifically a nation? The Anishinabek Nation itself is fairly large. For business purposes and for accountability purposes, we have to do it through an incorporation. That's where the Union of Ontario Indians comes from.

¿ (0920)

Mr. John Godfrey: The difficulty you're having now in getting this governance agreement in principle—the negotiations are between you as the Union of Ontario Indians and the federal government—is quite outside the issue of the bill we're talking about, is it? Is it a pre-existing problem? Can you tell me why it is not working better?

Mr. Fred Bellefeuille: The issue is governance—right? With the negotiation process, what we're trying to do is to build on governance successes—as opposed to saying to first nations communities, “Forget about what you're doing. Here's a new act; here are new regulations.” It calls into question legitimate land-custom election processes, where in the community there have never been problems before in proposing something. It's actually tearing away legitimacy.

Mr. John Godfrey: But the difficulty you're having in getting the agreement predates the bill itself, in other words?

Mr. Fred Bellefeuille: The difficulty I see in negotiating the agreement is that a lot of times federal processes are very slow.

Mr. John Godfrey: There's no problem with the 43, you know what you want; the difficulty in getting the agreement is on the federal government side—is that right?

Mr. Fred Bellefeuille: That's correct.

Mr. John Godfrey: My other question may just arise because I'm misreading the sentence, but page 4 says, in the bottom paragraph:

The laws that our member first nations develop must be within priority areas of first nations members' concern. Even if first nations enact laws within areas proposed under Bill C-7, such as “Governance (section 18)”, and “Band Purposes (section 17)”, these are not priority areas for first nations members.

What I'm trying to understand, when I read that—and maybe it's just me—is whether you mean that governance itself is not a priority area, or just that governance as defined in this section is not a priority? What does that section of the statement mean?

Mr. Nelson Toulouse: I think it comes down to the question, what are those first nations' priorities? In some instances, I would say maybe governance is not a priority. There are some custom laws that have been in operation for a while. They're now fairly successful, and those are the ones that were adopted by a community. So governance probably would not be a priority; there would be other priorities.

Mr. John Godfrey: Can you name some of the other priorities?

Mr. Nelson Toulouse: Health would certainly be a big one. Social services is in there. Let me say, we've been studied to death. There are all kinds of studies that will indicate that health is a big concern. We're either three times or five times, usually, worse than the national average, so those are always priorities. And certainly, on the social side, there's a backlog in housing.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Dromisky.

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

If you've been following this committee as it has been touring, and so forth, you will realize that I'm a fairly new member--I've been added to this committee. Therefore I'm still in the very confusing state of learning and trying to clarify some of the issues that have been presented by the chiefs throughout the country.

When you talk about the 43 communities, are you talking about 43 reserves in your group? Can you clarify that? What kind of model am I looking at here?

¿ (0925)

Mr. Nelson Toulouse: Yes, that's correct. We prefer the term “first nations”, but essentially, as far as the act goes, it's reserves.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Okay, fine.

How many people would that entail, in those 43 first nations?

Mr. Nelson Toulouse: I don't have the precise numbers in front of me, but I would say that's probably about 45,000 people.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Okay, so about 45,000 people, and you're coming here before us to tell us that you're totally opposed to what the government is proposing in legislation, especially Bill C-7. Can you tell me how you have obtained some type of consensus or support from the 45,000 members of your community to oppose this bill, when we know the vast, vast majority, before you made your declaration, had no knowledge of what this bill was all about?

The chiefs made declarations publicly as to why they were opposed to it, when the vast, vast majority of the first nation people had no idea what you were talking about. So give me some idea of how you found out that some 40,000 people in your community were opposed to this bill. Tell me what strategies you used.

Mr. Nelson Toulouse: Yes, I will answer that question, but I'll also maybe ask a question at the end.

First, regarding the governance structures themselves, we, the Union of Ontario Indians, and certainly the grand council chief and myself, the deputy grand chief, are elected by chiefs. The chiefs in turn are elected by their members.

There has been a lot of communication given out to first nation members. I can't say specifically if those 45,000-plus received that information, but what we do know is the various dialogues they found in those communities. Chiefs do take direction from councils, and they take those decisions forward to our grand council, where we are in turn given direction. So in fact that's the governance structure under which we operate.

My question to you is, if you want to talk about numbers, this bill is going forward on the basis that it has responses from 8,000, out of 600,000. According to my math, there's a pretty big variance there.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Do I have time?

The Chair: You have time.

I'll take some of the time, because I think the chair should respond to the comment you just made.

Some claim that there was no consultation. There was $10 million spent. We have copies of letters that were sent to all chiefs and everyone involved. Whether it was good consultation or not, I won't be the judge. But after that, this committee spent three months last spring studying the bill and invited all the chiefs and leaders to help educate us. Now we're spending nine weeks on amendment to a bill, four of those weeks travelling.

So we're here to ask you; we're consulting. But I'll tell you, this is our third week, and it's very difficult to get anyone to speak about Bill C-7. So at the end, everyone will say there was no consultation--we didn't talk about Bill C-7. That's true, but we're here and we're spending a lot of money to travel the country to ask people who are affected by Bill C-7 how they feel about the bill, and we're not getting the information. We haven't been getting it for two weeks, and the three weeks we spent in Ottawa. So as chair, I'll stand by our record to reach out to everyone and consult.

Now we'll start the clock again.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: I'll go back to just the province of Ontario. I know there have been 91 information and consulting sessions. We talk about $10 million for the country that has been devoted to this whole process of consulting with first nations people. That's a figure that came up long ago. It's going to be a heck of a lot more than $10 million before we're finished. We know that.

There were letters given out; regional directors were begging chiefs and representatives from the various communities to come forth, but they were ignored, and many, many chiefs have simply indicated that they're not interested. So that's why I'm a little bit puzzled about this representation and the consultative process.

Every opportunity was given for representation to take place, to bring your concerns before this committee and other committees that were set up by the minister and travelled all over the country in the various regions.

So I have nothing to say of a negative nature regarding the consultative process. I think there's a certain amount of responsibility that the chiefs of the first nations people must demonstrate to the people besides just simply saying, oh, forget about it; we're opposed to it.

Even with your national congress, you never had even 50% of the people attending. You always had less. That, to me, as a newcomer to this committee, is an indication that although at the national congress there was a voice, there were people speaking against the bill, they didn't really, truly represent 100% of the people. They represented far, far less, a much smaller percentage.

The figures we're talking about and the games we're playing here are very frustrating and confusing, not only to me, but I'm sure they're confusing and frustrating to the people of the first nations. We've had many people come before this committee and individually tell us a great number of reasons why the bill must be passed.

¿ (0930)

The Chair: Mr. Bellefeuille.

Mr. Fred Bellefeuille: When Parliament sits, do they have 100% consensus of the Canadian people?

When our chiefs sit, they do the best they can to represent the interests of their people. They have been elected, just like members of Parliament have been elected into positions, and they do their best to represent the views. If they don't represent the views, they don't get re-elected. It's a similar process, and that's the best we can do.

We have a grand council resolution that says we oppose Bill C-7, and the reason for that is because it's a federal solution to an Indian problem.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Okay, I'll come back later.

The Chair: Mr. Hubbard, seven minutes.

Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): Thanks, Mr. Chair.

We haven't gotten too much into the actual bill yet, but one of the key elements that has come up in recent years has been the difference between on-reserve and off-reserve people. I wonder if you could give us some direction in terms of what is happening with the 43 first nations that you represent, in terms of their attitudes and in terms of the recommendations they might have as to how our government, in this bill, might address this issue.

Mr. Nelson Toulouse: Firstly, it was never first nations governments that separated their off-reserve members. The Department of Indian Affairs formula made that split. We've always been funded on on-reserve members only. It wasn't until recently, I guess, with the Corbiere decision that in fact off-reserve members are now entitled to vote. Before that, the electoral regulations under the Indian Act did not allow off-reserve members to vote. So in fact it wasn't our doing to separate our off-reserve members. Those were just legislated.

The first nations communities certainly maintain their membership, and as far as this organization goes, quite a few years ago we started dialogue with other organizations that exist outside our first nation communities, those being friendship centres and other interest groups. So in fact we started that dialogue quite a while ago, and we've sort of been stymied a bit with the legislation, with the proposed legislation and the talks with it. But certainly we're open to dialogue. We always have been, and that will continue.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: With the fact that probably nearly half of the first nations peoples live off reserve, what is the significance of this proposed concept that all people can vote, or maybe that in your own 43 first nations, at present, everyone can vote whether they're on reserve or off reserve?

What do you think of the implications, among our 600 or more first nations communities, if people off reserve may have more political clout, shall we say, than the people living on reserve?

¿ (0935)

Mr. Nelson Toulouse: Well, it probably has that impact already.

Again, I think if we had been allowed to maintain our systems of leadership selection, things would have been far different. I did introduce myself as a member of a clan. That particular clan is a very traditional government system that was here prior to the arrival of the Europeans. I don't think we had those problems before then.

Anything can be modernized, so I think there are solutions there. It's a matter of talking to first nations and being involved in that process.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: With the 43 members of your group, you have elected chiefs, and you also speak of customary methods of selecting chiefs. Among the 43 first nations, how many have election processes for chief in terms of our so-called European method of voting, and how many have the traditional or customary system?

Mr. Nelson Toulouse: I would have to say there would be fewer than 50% that operate on custom.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Might you describe to our committee how this custom works?

Mr. Nelson Toulouse: I'm not really sure exactly how one operates compared to another. That particular process would have been developed by the community, and that question might be suited to some communities that will be appearing this morning. I think you will have one, for sure, that operates on custom.

Now, the point is, I don't think one size fits all. There are differences in how those are developed. They're community based.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: In your opinion, would moving to an electoral system with a term in office of four to five years be an improvement on the present system, or would it cause problems?

Mr. Nelson Toulouse: Well, I can safely say that longer terms would certainly benefit the leadership. Certainly the current two years does not allow leadership to fulfill their mandates. Two years is not a long time. Essentially, it comes down to what the community thinks is appropriate, whether it's going to be four years or even how it's going to be structured. That's what's really important.

The Chair: Okay, we'll go for a four-minute round.

Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey: First I have a comment, and then a question, Mr. Toulouse.

I guess my comment is that I have some sympathy for the difficulty you had in answering my friend Stan Dromisky's question, because members of Parliament would face the same difficulty. How many of us have formally polled our constituents to know what they think about Canada joining the war against Iraq? We haven't done the polls, but we know, and I think we wouldn't have to go too far to get a pretty clear sense of it.

The difficulty we have as a committee, then, first putting aside whether the whole consultation process has been adequate or inadequate, is that the result of it seems to be pretty much negative to date. There are people out there who approve, but we seem to have some difficulty getting witnesses to come forward who say this is a really great thing.

Whether that's our fault or anybody else's, I don't know, but I think we honestly would have to say this is where we are in the process, whether we like it or not.

I guess my question, Chief Toulouse, is to know a little bit more about your own clan, because you've mentioned it. I think if I knew a bit more about how your particular clan works, both in terms of where it's located geographically, whether it's one of 43 or several of the 43 nations, and how you deal currently with elections and off-reserve membership and that sort of thing, it would give me a more concrete sense of how life actually works, rather than it being abstract.

¿ (0940)

Mr. Nelson Toulouse: Number one, the Pike Clan was part of the Fish Clan. By virtue of that, I would not ordinarily be sitting here; I would be sitting beside somebody from the Crane Clan, being the adviser. The Fish Clan is one of seven clans, and the primary function of the Fish Clan was basically to advise and be the intermediary for other clans.

Education takes time. Change requires education, and that is the process we are involved in as an organization. It's called nation building, and nation building is about having those discussions and talking about change and how the Anishinabe people can be involved in that process.

Because we've been under this regime for so long--and I don't have to talk about the effects of the education policies our people were subjected to--it is difficult to implement change quickly. People have been under the Indian Act and have seen nothing else. It wasn't until 1951 that parts of the Indian Act that disallowed our abilities to do even traditional ceremonies were repealed.

We have to educate our own people, and we are doing that. It's a slow process, but probably anybody in Canadian society will see that our traditional ceremonies are in fact coming back. Even the signs on the highways are changing, and people are gradually starting to accept this and be involved in that particular process.

I'm not sure if I've answered your question.

Mr. John Godfrey: I'm still trying to understand the specificity of being.... I can see the Pike Clan is part of the Fish Clan, but I'm trying to understand whether those clans are among the 43 nations and whether you can say that the following members of the Pike Clan live in these places, these reserves, these nations, or whatever else. I'm just trying to understand the mechanics of it as much as anything, as part of my own education, if you don't mind.

Mr. Nelson Toulouse: The clans do not specifically reside in a certain geographic area. They reside in all likelihood in all communities. In the event there is not a clan that resides in a community, then there is a process whereby a clan can be adopted.

Again, part of my traditional teaching is that it is not really for me to say those things. We rely on a council of elders; those are our teachers.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Dromisky.

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

The statement was made that one of the problems regarding Bill C-7 is that we're looking at federal solutions to first nations peoples' problems, yet I don't see it that way. I see it as an opportunity for first nations peoples to create the rules and regulations and the processes and strategies for solving a multitude of their own problems. In other words, freedoms are going to be given, and on the local level, the constituency level, that never existed before.

I'm from Thunder Bay, and you know the Fort William nation and how really gung-ho they are at the present time with the kinds of changes that are taking place there. I was involved right from the very beginning, from 1988 on, with the kinds of problems with the federal government they had to deal with. I was appalled at how little control they had over their destinies, how with every move they made they had to go through a regal process and everything else at a tremendous cost in energy, money, and time. I see Bill C-7 as getting rid of that nonsense and opening the door for first nations people to develop the regulations they are going to abide by, regulations that are created by their own people to be in control of their own destiny.

That might be a simplistic kind of viewpoint I'm presenting, but that's the way I look at it. It's this versus the kinds of horrors that have been experienced by first nations peoples in northwestern Ontario, especially in the first nations relationship with the federal government and the regulations that have existed and still exist to this day.

¿ (0945)

The Chair: I'm looking for a question.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: I would like their reaction to what I've said regarding this.

Mr. Nelson Toulouse: I certainly know Chief Peter Collins quite well, and I certainly enjoy going to that community. As a matter of fact, I'm going there this week.

Now, the one thing I will say is this. If any barriers can be removed to promote development, we would certainly support that, and I think we've always indicated that. The one observation I can make about the Fort William community is, if I were going to speak my spiritual language, Anishinaabemowin, they'd be hard-pressed to find anybody to understand me. In terms of the status of a community or even a nation, the foundation of a nation is its culture and language, but that one element is missing there.

It sort of indicates that there are some things that need to be done. There's economic development, but also you have to develop people. One of the things we need to do--and I'm sure you've heard it--is called the healing process. That's an essential part of nation building, the healing, the learning, and the relearning of culture, with number one being the learning of language.

The Chair: You have another minute, Mr. Dromisky.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Fred, do you have any comments to make? Why are the chiefs so opposed to the move by the government to present the avenue and the opportunity for them to create the foundation for their own destiny?

Mr. Fred Bellefeuille: Actually, I didn't see the question as being that. The first question you had asked was why are the first nations people opposed to the provisions of Bill C-7 and the opportunity, as you put it, to present processes that would increase efficiency and those kinds of things? You had mentioned the Fort William First Nation, where they used a lot of energy to make things work, and I don't doubt that.

My comment is that your question underlined whether there is the flexibility in Bill C-7 that would allow for a community to create what they want, to make policies and processes that are seen as accountable and legitimate. I think that Bill C-7 is not flexible enough. In fact, it sets out substantive requirements for a first nations community to fulfill in order to pass an administrative or financial code. Those substantive requirements are so narrow that it's not really a decision they have. There's such a narrow window of choices that it's not going to be legitimate.

Number one, for example, there are elections according to band custom; many communities have band custom election systems they're currently operating under. Now, just the introduction of Bill C-7 and the whole idea of looking at elections removes the legitimacy that already existed and puts a question of doubt in the codes people thought were legitimate to begin with.

Yes, there are communities that have difficulties with elections, definitely, but you can't paint everybody with the same brush on that issue. That's true with the financial and it's true with the administrative; there are many first nations within the 43 we represent that are doing quite well.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Dromisky.

As chair, I don't participate in the questioning, but I will say that the vast majority of chiefs I've spoken to--and I've spoken to many--who have successful communities and are involved in economic development tell me they're not opposed to what's in this bill; they're doing it. They're opposed to the process. No one disagrees with the comment I just made.

We're here to deal with the bill, and it should be known that the committee is not a committee of the Prime Minister. It's not a committee of the minister. It's not a committee of government. It's a committee of the House of Commons. The person we answer to is not Bob Nault or Jean Chrétien; it's Peter Milliken, the Speaker of the House. Our only focus, the job we've been given, is Bill C-7. So I'd like that to be clear.

I can say to you and everyone here that the committee members on all sides are very conscious not to paint everybody with the same brush. There are constituents of ours who enjoy doing that. We resist that and fight that because we know in our travels we have seen real successes--a lot of them.

It may comfort you to know we're on this committee because we care and we want to make a difference. All of us have enough seniority that we could probably be on the foreign affairs committee or those exotic committees that take you all over the world. This is a very difficult committee. And I commend the members on all sides--those who are coming to join us and those who are in Ottawa because of budget bills this week. To be on this committee is to want to make a difference, because it's difficult work.

Mr. Hubbard is next, for four minutes, and then we'll have four minutes for closing remarks.

¿ (0950)

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

Several times we've mentioned nation building. We've also heard about sustainable economies, in terms of our first nations communities. A lot of us have had experience with some first nations groups that have had management problems. They have what they call third-party management. We have to look at the very strict limitations that are placed upon the budgetary and operational procedures of our first nation communities, because within that context the chief and council don't have a lot of room to manoeuvre.

It appears that this bill would give them greater latitude in looking after their financial management. Would it be a correct assumption that the bill offers more flexibility and greater control in planning?

Mr. Nelson Toulouse: I think we'd have to see what the regulations were to qualify an answer.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Do you have any comments on third-party management, or do any of your first nations have that problem?

Mr. Nelson Toulouse: Yes, they do, but certainly not to the percentage I've heard. Within our organization of 43 first nations, it's probably less than 10%.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: In another part of the bill they talk about redress, and some members have suggested a type of ombudsman might work. We have 43 first nations working together, and the bill talks about a redress procedure for each first nation. Others have said maybe there could be one redress activity or method for a larger group.

For the 43 nations you represent, could there be a single office of redress instead of 43 separate ones, as the bill seems to reflect?

Mr. Nelson Toulouse: That's an interesting question, which is being raised within the current jurisdictional discussions we're having. I'll be discussing the idea of an ombudsman or redress with communities. I can't tell what the outcome will be. Only the first nation members can say that, but we'll be facilitating those discussions and workshops.

¿ (0955)

Mr. Charles Hubbard: In your own opinion, you have avoided, shall we say, a lot of the questions we've asked.

You talked about consultation. We've been involved with consultation, as the chair has said, for a considerable period of time. In terms of the answer you just gave me, can you see the consultation that you're conducting coming to a conclusion in a year, five years, ten years? How long would your consultation process take?

Mr. Nelson Toulouse: It's difficult to put a timeframe on it. To us, consultations are ongoing. As I say, people have to feel comfortable in discussing a lot of issues. We've been under this regime for 150 years. First nations people have always felt themselves to be oppressed. There is movement in terms of an attitude change. It's something you really can't put a timeframe on. Our discussions within the negotiation process are ongoing, and it does take a while. People are very fearful of change, understandably so. If you put a timeframe on things and you don't meet that objective, then it's defeating. I think the implication of not meeting a timeframe is sometimes very negative. It will devastate people.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Deputy Grand Chief, we have four minutes for closing remarks.

Mr. Nelson Toulouse: I want to thank the committee for allowing us to be here today. I certainly hope it has been an education. As an organization, we could educate you further, if you so desire. One of the things we do have is an institute.

I think the point has been well said. In terms of process, we have to be involved in a very meaningful way, and we can tell you what that meaningful way is. It's certainly not talking to a few. For first nations people, in terms of our attitudes and aspirations, it is an educational process. You need to understand that. In terms of timeframes, it's a difficult thing. Change is not easy.

As an organization we are currently involved in a process that we believe can achieve some good things. It involves people at the grassroots level. Again, I can't make a statement that involves 100%. Nobody can. As MPs, I'm sure you can agree with that. It is a process where people have an opportunity to participate in various discussions by way of workshops. We facilitate those discussions, and they are well attended. It's an opportunity for people to express concerns and in fact to learn. Those are things we're doing at the jurisdictional level.

The other thing we do, which I talked about, is nation building. It's a healing process. It's about raising people's aspirations as a people, as Anishinabek. To me that's really what's important. You can go forward and propose and develop laws, but how do you enable those things to serve people? That's what's really important. You have to involve people. We're involved in a process where we are involving people. Hopefully, in the end we will have consensus. In fact, that is what people want, and that's what we strive for.

Meegwetch.

The Chair: Thank you very much. Your presentation was very informative and helpful. We can tell that you speak from the heart and that you are living your mission. I commend you, and I say that the people you represent are fortunate to have you. I thank you very much.

I now welcome to the table Chief Vernon Syrette, from the Batchewana First Nation. Chief Syrette, we welcome you. We will be spending 30 minutes together. I see that you're accompanied by a colleague, who we ask you to introduce.

We ask you to make your presentation, and hopefully we will allow time for questions from members.

À (1000)

Chief Vernon Syrette (Batchewana First Nation): [Witness speaks in his native language]

Good morning to you all. My name is Chief Vernon Syrette and I'm from the Batchewana First Nation. I have with me my band manager, Ms. Margaret Lesage. It's a pleasure to be here this morning.

The entire presentation is approximately 27 pages long, and I hope the committee takes the time to review it as well. My intention is to try to get through this thing as best I can. I think there are a lot of good things in it about our community and in regard to the First Nations Governance Act as well.

The Chair: Chief, I can tell you that your document will be translated and distributed to all members, even to those who are not here. It will be placed on record, as well as everything you say here.

Chief Vernon Syrette: Meegwetch.

I'll start with the executive summary. There's a table of contents in the executive summary. I'm going to rely on Margaret for answers to some of your questions, hopefully, if they get too technical for me.

I'll begin with the executive summary, then.

The Batchewana First Nation of Ojibways asks that the members of the committee review our history, issues, and conflicts, as these inform our position on the proposed legislation and our concerns about its motivation, process, and implementation. If this committee is prepared to make decisions about our future, it should learn about our past.

The proposed First Nations Governance Act is not a high priority with the Batchewana First Nation because of its earlier involvement in self-government and inherent-right policy negotiations that failed and its years of litigation in the Corbiere case.

First nations governance is only a high priority for the Batchewana First Nation at all at this point because of the need to take protective and preventative action against the First Nations Governance Act and the threat it poses to our rights.

The Batchewana First Nation opposes Bill C-7, the First Nations Governance Act, as a unilateral imposition of federal will upon our first nation; a breach of the government-to-government relationship with Canada; a violation of our inherent right of self-government as protected by the Constitution Act, 1982; an incomplete package in which the realities of future regulation are not described or disclosed and support for implementation is not guaranteed; and the product of a deeply flawed and divisive political process, inconsistent with the fiduciary duties and honour of the Crown.

The federal government has falsely represented the First Nations Governance Act as the product of the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in the Corbiere case and a “people process” of consultation. The First Nations Governance Act does not de-implement the Corbiere decision, even to the minimal extent of repealing the words in the Indian Act declared invalid by the court.

The key elements of the First Nations Governance Act were disclosed in the earlier policy statement, Gathering Strength, and were in process long before the Corbiere case was decided, but the intergovernmental and partnership assurances in that policy have been completely ignored with respect to the First Nations Governance Act, and community consultation process was a sham that did not alter the federal agenda and that was calculated to circumvent first nations governments.

Our first nations members have an undoubted interest in governance issues. It is the first nations governments that will have to assume the burdens of the First Nations Governance Act and find the resources to discharge those obligations.

Neither the first nations members nor their governments accept unilateral federal infringements of their inherent rights of self-determination—as first nations understand those rights, and not as talking points of federal policy.

Failure to adequately consult with first nations governments before developing the federal mandate and agenda is fatal to this legislation, which will never be acceptable to first nations, especially once the full scope and true costs are known—a far cry from the present state of information available.

The Batchewana First Nation asks that this committee report to the house that Bill C-7 is unpopular, unworkable, and unreviewable because of the lack of complete information and the unreliability of its proponents. The Batchewana First Nation also asks that this committee satisfy itself that a consultation draft of the regulations is available for review and comment before Bill C-7 clears this committee; satisfy itself that the first nations are assured sufficient resources to assume and discharge the obligations that would be unilaterally imposed by the First Nations Governance Act; as an alternative to outright rejection of the First Nations Governance Act, add a clause that would make the package optional for those first nations that may want it, when they want it and can be assured of adequate resources—this would also enable this complex bill to be much simplified; as an imperative, ensure that any draft of the First Nations Governance Act include a non-derogation clause; and commit to another round of consultations after second reading of this bill, which did not take place with the bill to establish the Canadian Centre for the Independent Resolution of First Nations Specific Claims.

Finally, the Batchewana First Nation asks that this committee secure from the federal government a firm and enforceable commitment that it will restart this process in a matter consistent with the government-to-government relationship that's described in Gathering Strength, where Canada committed to work out solutions together beforehand instead of picking up on the pieces after the fact; negotiate rather than litigate; communicate; engage the first nations in meaningful consultation; and act promptly to address concerns before positions become too polarized to move.

The First Nations Governance Act and the process that has brought us forward are gross violations of these principles.

À (1005)

To go on to our actual document on the Batchewana First Nation and our communities, the administrative assembly of the Batchewana First Nation of Ojibways is located on the Rankin Reserve within the city of Sault Ste. Marie, and is bounded on the east by the Garden River First Nation.

The population of the Batchewana First Nation is approximately 2,200, with 700 living on reserve and approximately 1,500 off reserve. The majority of our on-reserve population lives at the Rankin Reserve. Although it was not one of our original settlements, it was purchased by the Batchewana First Nation with its own trust funds in the 1940s to conclude the period of land losses described below. The area of the Rankin Reserve is 1,510 hectares.

The second-largest community is located at Goulais Bay on Lake Superior, a 40-minute drive from Rankin. These lands were acquired as a reserve in two transactions during the 19th century, at a time when the Batchewana First Nation was virtually landless. The area of the reserve is 645 hectares.

Two small reserves of 68 acres are located at Batchewana Bay, 80 kilometres north of the Sault and Whitefish Island. Whitefish Island is in fact the only one of our current reserves that was mentioned in our treaty. We recovered it as a reserve in 1999 after it had been wrongly and fraudulently expropriated early in the last century.

The Batchewana First Nation government is elected by the chief and eight councillors.

The Batchewana First Nation of Ojibways is affiliated with the North Shore Tribal Council and the Association of Iroquois and Allied Indians.

As for our issues, we want to let you know there are several critical issues that need to be addressed. These include education; economic development; lands and resources; housing and community infrastructure; health and environment; treaty and aboriginal rights; full constitutional and international protection; and land claims and governance.

À (1010)

Regarding our origins, like all the Anishinabe or Ojibways, the ancestors of the Batchewana First Nation came to the Great Lakes from the east, where they shared their origins with other Algonkian peoples. The nature of this migration has been preserved for unknown generations of our history, and was recorded by the early Europeans who came amongst us. The exact date of this is not known, but can be shown to have been thousands of years ago. And the gift of the Creator to the Ojibway was the upper Great Lakes and the rich hinterland in which we have lived through the ages.

A special gift to the Batchewana First Nation was the great rapids at the strait between Lake Superior and Lake Huron, now known as Sault Ste. Marie rapids, the St. Mary's River, known as Obadjiwan, or Place of the Mist. At this location, our ancestors were the custodians of one of the greatest freshwater fisheries in the world. The first nations peoples came from all parts of the Great Lakes to trade with them for fish, especially the teeming whitefish.

European observers noted the special skills required to catch these fish from the canoes in the rapids. Alexander Henry, for example, recorded that a skillful fisherman in autumn would take 500 in two hours. These canoeing and fishing skills took our ancestors far afield, both to secure additional resources and to trade. While most Ojibway communities in the area were river communities located at the mouths of rivers, using them for access to the hinterland, our ancestors were lake Indians, fishing in the straits in the season and travelling over a broad area during the spring and summer.

Our traditional community locations were at the Sault and in the bays and inlets north of Sault Ste. Marie, notably at Goulais Bay, Batchewana Bay, Agawa River--which is now in the Lake Superior Provincial Park--and Michipicoten Island.

Batchewana First Nation members continue to be active in the fishery, principally for trade purposes. After first contact with the Europeans in the 17th century, over the next 200 years our ancestors traded fish with the Hudson's Bay Company and the American Fur Company, as well as in smaller enterprises with other first nations.

By the middle of the 19th century, 2,000 to 4,000 barrels of fish were being exported annually from Sault Ste. Marie on both sides of the border. Even as recently as 1875, 70% of the commercial fisheries in the region were first nations members. All that started to change very quickly for three reasons.

First, the government began to suppress first nations fishing and supplement first nations fishers by granting licences to non-aboriginals.

Second, industrialization, especially at Algoma Steel above the rapids, caused environmental damage to the fisheries.

Third, construction of the international control dam across the river effectively ended the huge whitefish migrations of the past, and they have never recovered.

We of the Batchewana First Nation are proud of our heritage and our history as Ojibway. We are proud of our record as managers of one of the most important resources in the Great Lakes, and we've been both saddened and damaged by this destruction. We are vigilant to preserve our rights to harvest fish and game and to assure the future capacity of our people to do so.

The pre-Confederation Robinson Huron Treaty of 1850 was signed by our hereditary chief, Chief Nebenaigoching. His father, together with his father-in-law, Shinguacouse, had been decorated warriors fighting for Canada in the War of 1812. These two leaders took exception to the intrusions of mining companies into traditional territories.

Following a raid to evict miners encamped at the Montreal River north of the Sault, they were arrested and taken to Toronto. They were then recognized by virtue of their community's contributions to the war endeavours, and efforts were initiated to resolve their grievances.

After a census was taken and inquiries made into the traditional land areas of the various first nations in the upper Great Lakes, William Benjamin Robinson travelled to Sault Ste. Marie to negotiate the terms of the treaty, and in due course it was signed. The Batchewana First Nation secured its aboriginal title to Whitefish Island and the rapids as its traditional fishing station, and a much larger reserve from the point near Gros Cap to Batchewana Bay, nearly 40 miles to the north and inland 10 miles throughout the whole distance.

Commissioner Robinson gave the Crown's assurance of continued harvesting rights in the treaty and the full and free privilege to hunt over the territory now ceded by them, and to fish in the waters as they had been in the habit of doing, saving and excepting such portions of the said territory. He told the chief that the lands subject to the treaty had little value except for isolated mineral occurrences, but if the value did increase, the annuities would increase as well, and would be “augmented from time to time”. That's the wording.

À (1015)

After Confederation, Canada did increase the annuities once by a dollar. It sued Ontario to recover the expenditure, and when it lost that case, and without any participation on the part of the first nations, no further increases have ever been made.

The treaty promises have been flagrantly breached in many ways. When the large reserve that had been promised was surveyed, it was laid out ten miles inland from the western-most point, not ten miles “throughout the whole distance”. This was a dispute at the time and has never been resolved.

The hunting and fishing rights of the Batchewana First Nation and its members have been violated time and again since 1850—and more, rather than less, since 1982, when they were supposedly given constitutional protection. Despite many good words from the Supreme Court of Canada about fiduciary duty and the honour of the Crown, the Government of Canada has never lifted a finger to protect our treaty rights, and the Batchewana First Nation was not able to keep the reserve promised in the treaty either.

Regarding the Pennefather Treaty, not deterred by earlier failed attempts, the government managed in 1959 to persuade the Batchewana, Garden River, and Thessalon First Nations to surrender large sections of reserve land. In the case of the Batchewana First Nation, that surrender was for its entire and minimal 350-square-mile reserve. In return, Batchewana First Nation members were promised homes and lands at Garden River. It's another promise the government did not keep, because it could not allot Garden River lands to non-Garden River members.

Many of our members sojourned there for nearly a century without any participation in the government of that community or any secure land tenure. A small number of Batchewana First Nation members still live at Garden River. The government has never accounted to the Batchewana First Nation for the sale of its former reserve lands or for its unsold surrendered lands in which the Batchewana First Nation has an interest, including mineral and other rights on lands that were sold. The issue of the proper area of the treaty reserve was never settled, and there has been no accounting or compensation to the Batchewana First Nation for the sale or use of lands that should have been included in the original survey.

For nearly 20 years after the Pennefather Treaty, the Batchewana First Nation had only the small Whitefish Island Reserve, which was subject to regular flooding, given that it was low-lying land and rapids.

In the 1880s, lands were acquired at Goulais Bay, and finally the Rankin location much later on. The Batchewana First Nation itself has paid to provide its own homelands, although it was the government that created the problem.

While Whitefish Island escaped the general rapacity of the Pennefather Treaty, it did not escape the notice of opportunists. In a set of three expropriations by railroad companies under common control, the whole island was taken for a minimal value. The island was never needed and never used for railway purposes.

Ironically, during World War I Canada turned around and expropriated Whitefish Island from the railway companies, offering them what they had paid plus interest. The railway companies refused and went to the Exchequer Court, where they succeeded in getting the fair value they had not paid for, and which Canada had not secured for the first nation.

Batchewana First Nation submitted a specific claim with respect to the island in May 1980, settled it in 1993, and secured the return of the island in 1999—a measure that took six years to implement, even though all the lands were federal lands. No compensation was paid for the delay.

Another footnote to the story of the Whitefish Island claim is that as part of the railway expropriation compensation, three families were relocated to Gros Cap, where land was secured for them. In the 1990s, Canada sold that land but did not compensate the Batchewana First Nation for it. The final footnote cannot yet be written, since the Batchewana First Nation has never received compensation or redress for the loss of the immense fishery resource adjacent to the ancestral fishing station.

À (1020)

As for Bill C-31, this enactment of Parliament in 1985 was intended to bring the Indian Act of the day into line with the charter's equality requirements. The long-standing provisions that deprived Indian women of their status and band membership if they married a non-Indian man, but granted status to non-Indian women who married Indian men, were repealed. In addition, new provision was made to reinstate those who had previously been enfranchised to Indian status and band membership.

The government seriously undermined the impact of the reinstatement provisions. The actual number of individuals granted status to Batchewana First Nation under Bill C-31 was several times the number anticipated. The government's promise that the bands would not suffer financially or otherwise as a result of these new demands upon education, housing, and other services did not translate into sufficient funds for first nations to meet these demands. In the case of education, for example, when the absolute magnitude of the real demand became apparent, Canada's answer was not to find new funds to meet that demand. In short order, it placed a cap on the funds that would be provided. This was long on promise, and short on delivery.

Some funding was available for a period after 1985, but first nations never received enough funding to house all of the reinstated or new members who wished to relocate to reserves. And with education budgets, including post-secondary education, there is always a danger of shortfalls or for our needs to be augmented by other funding from first nations, including the Batchewana First Nation.

The Chair: Chief, I must interrupt. We've used up twenty minutes of our thirty minutes. The members would appreciate it if you would address the concerns you have about Bill C-7, to help us in our deliberation so that we can make this legislation better for the people you represent.

We have ten minutes left. You may use them as you wish, but I wanted to draw to your attention the concerns of the members. They take notes when you speak about Bill C-7.

Chief Vernon Syrette: I'm really sorry that I don't have the opportunity to complete reading what I wrote, because I think it's important for the committee to hear it. The Corbiere case, the one that prompted the First Nations Governance Act, is what I was getting into next. Maybe I'll quickly try to recapitulate some of that, and then I'll jump into what we see with the First Nations Governance Act.

In regard to the Corbiere case, the Batchewana First Nation has special knowledge of this case, which is said to have provided the motivation for the First Nations Governance Act. The plaintiffs were members of the Batchewana First Nation, and the first nation itself was a defendant in the action. As a result, we had members on both sides of the case. The first nation did not appear at the trial as a party due to a lack of funding for legal counsel, but it was represented in the Federal Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada.

In both appellate courts the first nation pleaded for the opportunity to provide our own solution to the problem. We believed before this case arose that we were better able to achieve internal consensus on future direction than were external decision-makers, whether they be Parliament or the courts.

The Supreme Court noted our position in this way:

The band asks that the Court make no order in relation to the validity of the legislation at this time, but rather declare the legislation unconstitutional, and order the band, in conjunction with its on- and off-reserve members and with the Minister, to develop its own customary voting rules that would respect the principles of the Charter. It argues that at the end of a reporting period, if the legislation has not been changed in the appropriate way, the Court should then make a formal order. In the alternative, it suggests, a suspended declaration of invalidity is appropriate.

The court rejected our request that we be permitted to develop our own solution, but it did grant a suspended declaration of invalidity. Its decision therefore consisted of three elements. I'd like to go into those elements, but I'm going to jump over to page 19, the First Nations Governance Act, an overview.

The Batchewana First Nation sees the First Nations Governance Act process as generally comprised of four phases. Phase one is pre-legislation and consultation. For the reasons set out below and for other reasons well known to this committee, the Batchewana First Nation regards this consultation process as a sham.

Phase two is legislation. For present purposes we will deal with only this committee process and the content of the actual First Nations Governance Act. We take the committee hearings as an opportunity to register the Batchewana First Nation's opposition to the First Nations Governance Act. We also reject the content of the bill because it does not address our priorities and does not respect our rights or our own processes as self-governing first nations. It offers the most cumbersome means to achieve what could be done constitutionally and effectively with the active and substantive participation of first nations, this without all the machinations.

Phase three is regulation. There is little comfort to be found in the fact that no one knows the content of the proposed regulations. In many cases, if not most, for various reasons, it is not the First Nations Governance Act that will be the law first nations governments must follow. The actual rules will be in the regulations, and this committee will be remiss if it lets the First Nations Governance Act be enacted without their having prior knowledge of them.

Phase four is implementation. Whether a first nation adopts its own codes as prescribed by the First Nations Governance Act or becomes subject to the regulations by default, there will be a new and additional workload on first nations governments. This is the area where government always comes up short, in providing the necessary resources. If government is going to be permitted to impose this ultimatum on first nations, the committee should ensure the government will pay the costs.

As will be seen from this very brief overview, the Batchewana First Nation has raised profound concerns about this legislative initiative, which has been established from a false premise. It is laden with secrecy and cynical disregard for what first nations themselves want, and there are altogether too many unknowns.

À (1025)

When introducing the predecessor, Bill C-61, to the House of Commons on June 17, 2002, Minister Nault made the following statement:

[Bill C-61] has been drafted with extensive input from first nations people. The bill reflects our dialogue with the people we serve and their feedback. When we launched the first nations governance initiative over a year ago, we purposefully set out to consult with the people who would be most directly affected by this legislation.

The Batchewana First Nation doubts that anyone in Canada is gullible enough to believe those statements. A closer approximation of reality is the minister's open letter to the national chief dated September 20, 2001, where he says:

I remain prepared to address these matters as long as the essential mandate I have made from the government is respected.

À (1030)

The Chair: We did ask you to make a five-minute presentation.

Chief Vernon Syrette: With regard to legislation, there are two elements to this phase. The Batchewana First Nation recognizes that some elements of the FNGA work toward objectives that we have and would be to the benefit of our people. That does not, however, make the First Nations Governance Act a “people's package”. It is a governance bill that will most directly and most profoundly impact upon first nation governments, establishing their priorities if they allow it to do so, and requiring an impressive workload of chiefs, councillors, and staff.

In short, the First Nations Governance Act may offer some ultimate benefit to first nation members, but it is not the members who will have to do the work nor find the money to implement it. If a first nation opts to develop all the codes and has the resources for that, it is the first nation government that will have to convince the membership to adopt them, and the first nation government that will need to develop the policies and structures to accommodate them and find a way to fund all this.

In conclusion, the Batchewana First Nation has demonstrated that the federal government's explanations for the timing and motivation for the First Nations Governance Act are completely spurious. Mr. Johnson, on February 11, told this committee that the whole exercise stems from the Corbiere decision, and it was only then discovered that a broader range of issues needed to be addressed.

The fact is that the key elements of the First Nations Governance Act were set out in the Gathering Strength statement more than a year before the Supreme Court decided Corbiere. These were not afterthoughts; they were in the pipeline in 1997 at the latest or they could not have been announced in January 1998.

The Batchewana First Nation has made a number of suggestions and recommendations in this written brief, and we recommend them to the committee as constructive suggestions in the circumstances. The best possible result for us would be to see this bill withdrawn. The only alternative in the legislative process that would be at all palatable is that the legislation be optional.

In any form, the First Nations Governance Act must include a non-derogation clause and recognition of the inherent right of self-government as recognized for constitutional purposes, not merely for government convenience, policy, or public relations. The wording in former Bill C-79 may assist the committee in developing appropriate wording for the First Nations Governance Act.

Quite frankly, the Batchewana First Nation does not see any good coming out of this process at all if the First Nations Governance Act is enacted in any form at all. The damage it has already done to the relationship between first nations and Canada is palpable and may well become irremediable.

The Chair: Chief, I will ask you to conclude within one minute, please.

Chief Vernon Syrette: If the federal government is to be guided at all by the Gathering Strength policy statement, the Batchewana First Nation says it should be guided by the statement on the principles I read earlier to you. It should be readily apparent to the members of the committee that the First Nations Governance Act violates every one of those principles. It does not deserve to survive in its present form or at all.

I've put the message across to you. I just ask again that the committee take the time to review and consider what's in our brief.

The Chair: Thank you very much. The researchers will identify to us the parts that refer to Bill C-7, and that will certainly be taken into consideration.

Colleagues, I apologize, there will not be time for questions. We're up to 31 minutes.

Thank you very much for your presentation.

I now invite, from the Whitefish Lake First Nation, Chief Gail Shawbonquit.

While the chief is approaching the table, I will mention to everyone here that as we have time during the day, and again at the end of the day, we will invite anyone who wishes to make a two-minute spontaneous comment to register with the table. We will allow two minutes for any individual who has not addressed this committee or who will not be addressing this committee.

Welcome. We have 30 minutes together. We invite you to make a presentation and hopefully allow some time for questions.

Chief Gail Shawbonquit (Whitefish Lake First Nation): You have my presentation in front of you. I've also provided you with some photos of our community band office and our organizational chart, which I was speaking to this morning.

First of all, I would like to say good morning to everyone, to all the delegates and the committee members. I'm pleased to be here to present our perspective in terms of how we see the First Nations Governance Act in relation to Whitefish Lake First Nation. That is what my presentation will be based on--how we see it in relation to our first nation at Whitefish Lake.

I'd like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to address the standing sommittee on the First Nations Governance Act, Bill C-7. My name is Gail Shawbonquit and I am the chief of Whitefish Lake First Nation.

My presentation to you today is from a first nation's perspective. I want to show you how we do things at Whitefish Lake First Nation.

Although I cannot speak for my fellow first nations, I do recognize that many first nations throughout Canada can give you the same perspective I'm giving you today. Often we want to dwell on the negative issues about first nation leadership--administration and program delivery. We miss the success stories that are out there, and those are the kinds of things I want to talk about today.

Just to talk a bit about Whitefish Lake, Whitefish Lake First Nation is a community with a population base of 784. Approximately 310 people live on the first nation, with 474 living off reserve. A lot of them live mainly in the Sudbury area.

The primary language spoken in Whitefish Lake is English. We are Ojibway. There are only a handful of people who speak the Ojibway language--many of whom are our elderly people--because a lot of our people went through the residential school system and because of our close proximity to the city of Sudbury. In addition, our children attend school off reserve, and that started in the sixties.

Our first nation has 43,755 acres of land. We have a large land base that we are responsible for. The first nation's terrain is hilly, rough, and rocky, with beautiful lakes and enormous forested areas surrounding and sustaining the community. We are located about fifteen kilometres southwest of the greater city of Sudbury.

Whitefish Lake is a signatory of the Robinson-Huron Treaty of 1850. As treaty people, our inherent rights to fish and hunt are protected and practised by our community members yet today. This is something they endear and is close to their hearts. The treaty area covers an enormous area extending from the south--south to Parry Sound, north to Sault Ste. Marie, east to Algonquin Park and west to the shores of Lake Huron. Chief Shawenakeshick signed a treaty for Whitefish Lake First Nation back in 1850, and under the Robinson-Huron Treaty we receive an annuity of $4 per year for something that was called a treaty payment.

As to our current governance structure, we have a chief and seven councillors. We are governed by the Indian Act. The people of Whitefish Lake First Nation nominate and vote in their respective leader for a two-year term. There is one councillor for every 100 people.

As a council we meet bi-weekly to deal with governance-type matters and monthly to deal with financial matters. Minutes from our meetings are posted in the reception area for the perusal of band members and anyone who comes into our office. Once a year we provide an annual report to the community where we inform the membership of our successes. We report on program delivery and present the annual audit.

To talk a bit about our organizational structure, and I provided you with a copy of our structure, we have 30 full-time staff who work for the government. We have temporary staff as well. We do have an approved organizational chart along with approved job descriptions and salary grids.

À (1035)

We have an executive director who manages the day-to-day operations according to approved policies such as personnel, finance, land use, housing, forestry, employment and training, health, and other areas.

The chief and council do not get involved in administration. They have adopted a policy wherein they are not allowed to work as employees of the band. In addition to this, staff members who wish to participate in elections are required to take a leave of absence.

There are currently five different programs in place that are managed by program directors. They are health, community services, which includes child and family services, and social services. We have a community infrastructure program, planning and development, and finance and administration. Functional direction is provided by the executive director.

Under each program there are various staff positions. These programs provide services to the band membership on reserve. Where funding permits, services are provided to off-reserve members.

To talk a bit about our funding levels, our main source of funding to operate our government office is received from Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. It is approximately $2.3 million. Of this, we receive $383,000 from band support, which is used to fund our finance administration unit and to pay for honoraria for chief and council and travel costs. We also receive funding from Health Canada to the tune of $580,000 and other federal-provincial funds to the tune of $273,000.

A lot of the information I've been reading that's coming through our office in relation to the hearings talks about how many dollars are going out to first nations. This is why I wanted to include this here for you to see from our perspective how much money we do get per first nation member in our community.

If you were to divide the total population of 784 into the dollars we receive from government, which total $3.1 million, you can say that for each citizen we have in our first nation the government provides approximately $4,000. This is a far cry from the $25,000 per man, woman, and child figure quoted in the budget debate of February 24, 2003. If this were the case, then we should be receiving $19 million annually to run our programs in our community. We don't. Our first nation would welcome these dollars and our community members would be considered well off, but we all know that this is not the case.

We have a high unemployment rate in our community--we estimate 60%--even though we are in close proximity to the city of Sudbury. We are in the process of developing a business park, with 18 lots that we propose to lease to native and non-native businesses. Before we can do that, we have to comply with federal regulations, such as designating lands for leasing purposes. This is a very cumbersome process. It requires voting by our membership to surrender this land. Non-native communities are not subject to this type of regulation. Surrendering of land is not widely accepted by first nations, including Whitefish Lake First Nation. We have been working on this park for seven years and we are no closer today than we were seven years ago to seeing it become a reality.

What we expect to get from the business park is jobs for our people and revenue for our programs, as we subsidize many of the programs funded by government. We do have funds held in trust. We do have Casinorama money, and we do have a claim that was settled some years ago, so we do have money that we can use to subsidize. The point is that the moneys we receive are not adequate to run the programs we have in this community.

Our government is a strong government in the sense that it has policies and procedures relating to finance, personnel, and management. We conduct regular government meetings. We have a strong administrative structure. We are accountable to the funding bodies through contribution agreements and the various reporting requirements. We are accountable to our members through annual meetings and audits.

Now I want to talk a bit about why we oppose this bill. I know, Ray, you and I talked about this, and you wanted to hear about what can be done to amend this bill.

À (1040)

Well, I can tell you, I did look at the bill, and I read it and read it and thought, what could be amended? I couldn't find anything in that propsoed act that could be amended. All I can say is that this bill has to be rejected.

The First Nations Governance Act is not supported by the Whitefish Lake First Nation. In fact we have rejected this bill by resolution and by petition signed by the membership, and we had community meetings on it. We view this proposed act as completely unnecessary. It is not an act about governance; it is about administration.

We view the First Nations Governance Act as an additional burden to what's already in place. It clearly does not address good governance. The First Nations Governance Act violates our aboriginal and treaty rights, and above all, it perpetuates the colonialist attitude of the federal government.

Aboriginal and treaty rights are protected in the Canadian Constitution, and as aboriginal people we have an inherent right to self-government. We did not give up this right. It was taken away from us by legislation such as the Indian Act. Instead of getting out of the lives of Indian people, it will prolong the federal government's involvement in our day-to-day life for another hundred years.

Is this the legacy the Government of Canada wants to be remembered by? The 633 first nations across Canada are highly diversified, with different needs, different issues, different populations, and various levels of expertise in management, and with different land bases, with some that are rich in land and resources and some that are very poor.

This is very important for you to understand as a committee. You have to realize that you cannot paint us all with the same brush, because of our diversification. There are many first nations across Canada who are managing and making progress. On the other side, there are also many first nations who are struggling, and these are the first nations you should be putting your efforts towards. You need to address the real issues in the communities: poverty, lack of funding, health issues, and social and economic issues. These are the real issues.

The Auditor General reported that first nations are required to report on programs to an excessive amount, yet first nations are not given adequate resources to staff positions so that these reporting requirements can be met.

We believe this committee, as well as MPs who will be making the decision regarding this bill, have been led down the garden path. This proposed act will not improve our quality of life. It will not make us more accountable or transparent. It will not make us more democratic. In fact, what it will do is make us more dependent on government for decisions and financial resources.

The root of the problem is not what is set out in this bill. The root of the problem is colonialism and the continuance of it through acts such as the First Nations Governance Act.

This is my presentation. Thank you very much.

À (1045)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Colleagues, the Whitefish Lake First Nation is in my riding, and I can attest to everything that was said. It's a very good administration, and I give you a lot of credit for that, Chief.

Let's see. We have fifteen minutes—five minutes each. We'll continue the sequence we had before: Mr. Hubbard, Mr. Godfrey, Mr. Dromisky.

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

It's a very impressive presentation, Chief. I don't want to centre on some of the situations you present here concerning budgets. I'm rather amazed that your budget doesn't seem to be that great. Is education, for example, part of that budget?

Chief Gail Shawbonquit: Yes, it is. It's covered under our community services, and economic development as well.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: So you pay so much each year to the city here for your children to come to school?

Chief Gail Shawbonquit: Yes. As well, our elementary children go to day school in the nearby community, which is Naughton, but most of our children go either to Sudbury or to Lively.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: How many children, approximately, would you have attending school?

Chief Gail Shawbonquit: We have about 70 to 80 children in elementary, and there are probably about 30 in secondary. So we have a young population.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: I would suggest that there's probably more than a million dollars right there, in terms of your budget. Then you have 30 employees, and I would assume that's probably another million dollars. So you don't have a whole lot of money to—

Chief Gail Shawbonquit: One of the things I tried to demonstrate in the report is that these are the dollars we get from government to run our programs. I didn't report on all the other dollars we put in through the various other initiatives we have in the community.

But I wanted to demonstrate to you...I have been following the committee, and a number of reports have come out that have said--at least one report I read--that first nations people get something like $70,000 per man, woman, and child in first nation communities, so what are we crying about. I wanted to tell you it's not the case. This is how much money we get. And if there is that type of money being spent in communities, it's because they subsidize those programs with dollars they receive from other areas, from their own revenues that they generate in their communities.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Chief, with the financial arrangements, we talk about transparency and everyone on reserve, or in the first nation's community, being able to access the budgets, and the spending, and so forth. Does that actually happen in your community?

Chief Gail Shawbonquit: In our community, yes, we do. We go through a rigorous government budgetary process where staff and leadership work on our budget, and as well we present that to the community and say this is what our budget is for the year; this is how much money we spend.

Those reports that deal with the financial meetings we have are available in our reception area for members to review and ask questions about, to myself or the executive director.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: So in terms of Bill C-7, that aspect of it would not create a problem for you. Would the election process, in terms of Bill C-7, be a problem for your first nation?

À (1050)

Chief Gail Shawbonquit: One of the things we did, probably back in the 1980s, when we were working through a self-government process with our tribal council, the North Shore Tribal Council, was to go through a leadership and election process.

So the community decided how--again through committee process, working in the community and talking to each other--we could develop our own election code. So everything is there for us, it's on the shelf, it's a matter of ratification and of how we would do that. It's just what takes priority for us. For us, priority right now is finding jobs for our people, getting our young people working. So we've concentrated a lot of our efforts on that. But in terms of leadership, yes, we could do that.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Going on to the issue of jobs, I'm rather amazed that being so close to a major industrial centre like Sudbury here you would have 60% unemployment.

What do you think is the major cause of that? Is it education, is it the question of opportunity, that your people are not well accepted here in this area? What do you think is the major obstacle that is being encountered? Unemployment generally in this area of Ontario is about 9%, so you're seven times above the regional average.

Chief Gail Shawbonquit: I think a lot of it has to do with education; a lot of our young people drop out of school at a very early age. Probably it's due to a lack of good counselling in terms of opportunities, that type of stuff. A lot of it too is just that people don't want to leave home.

I think in society today we all face that in various.... You read about this in a lot of different media that come out, that young people today have a preference to stay at home. The other thing is even though we have a large land base, we've been working on trying to--

Mr. Charles Hubbard: I'm sneaking up on you.

Chief Gail Shawbonquit: Yes, I know. I've been watching you.

The Chair: I will interrupt, but I'd like you to clarify if the unemployment rate that you quote is of those who are on reserve or the total--

Chief Gail Shawbonquit: On reserve.

The Chair: So there are many who have chosen to leave and do have jobs in the communities. And for those who are a little bit offended when I cut them off, especially our witnesses, it will comfort you to know that I cut the minister off twice when he appeared before the committee.

Mr. Godfrey.

Chief Gail Shawbonquit: That's a sign of a good chairperson.

Mr. John Godfrey: To pursue the line of questioning we've been having, for curiosity's sake, of the 474 members who are off reserve, do you have any idea what the employment rate is for those folks?

Chief Gail Shawbonquit: Actually, no, we don't. And one of the things we're doing, tying in with our business park, is looking at wanting to do a survey, prepare a report, in terms of unemployment rates as well as skill levels, that type of thing. We want to try to develop a strategy in terms of how to deal with building capacity in our first nation, not only on reserve but off reserve as well.

Mr. John Godfrey: Also, to try to clarify the figures, when you talked about 70 children being in primary school and 30 in secondary, that was 70 of 310, or 70 of 784?

Chief Gail Shawbonquit: There are 70 of 374.

Mr. John Godfrey: It's 70 out of 310 on-reserve children. So you don't have to pay the education authority for registered off-reserve children. Therefore, when calculating the per capita cost of your social services, for instance.... You say it would be $4,000 on average for 784 people, but most of the social services you outlined are things like health and housing, and I assume most of those would be for the 310. That's where the demand would be, or do people come off?

À (1055)

Chief Gail Shawbonquit: In some of the instances, yes, I would say that, but in some I wouldn't. In health they do provide services for off reserve. Of the $580,000 that we actually receive in the program at the first nation level, some of that is used to fund services for off-reserve members, but not in a direct way, and that's why I wanted to make sure we saw this in that perspective, in the sense that we cannot say that, for instance, the $70,000 or the $25,000 is actually being received by the first nation people, because it is not.

Mr. John Godfrey: Returning to Mr. Hubbard's question, you say you've studied the bill and you think it's beyond amendment. I think then Mr. Hubbard said because things are working so well, that is to say in terms of governance, there's transparency, there's accountability, election codes, there's everything that one would hope to find.... And I realize it's not a priority, because it is working well. You're saying don't fix it because it ain't broke. But from a practical point of view, how distracting would it actually be if Bill C-7 were brought in as it is, or even amended in terms of what you would have to do from an administrative point of view? It sounds like you're ready to go on most of the things that are outlined in the bill. From a practical point of view, would it be very burdensome?

Chief Gail Shawbonquit: I could answer you with a question: why would we want to bring in an act that, for one thing, no one wants, especially the first nations and the leadership, and that could be done through other means? It has been done through other means in many cases. Look at the First Nations Land Management Act. That one is an optional act, even though I would also suggest that it's probably highly administrative, as opposed to being something that needs to be legislated. Why would we want to do something like that?

Mr. John Godfrey: I get that point. But my question is, even if it were not optional, that is to say if it were mandatory for all--some people are obviously less well administered than your people, but from your point of view, in terms of what you would actually have to do with your first nation--do you think it would be acutely burdensome to fulfill the requirement or actually just mail it in because you've already done the work?

Chief Gail Shawbonquit: I did make my presentation on the perspective of Whitefish Lake First Nation, but I do have a lot of concern for my fellow first nations out there across Canada who are not in the position our first nation is in. I would strongly say to you that this will be a tremendous burden on them. You are going to get a lot of resistance, and there's going to be resistance in the sense that people will say it's passed, but we're not going to do anything about it.

Mr. John Godfrey: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Dromisky.

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

I'm going to put myself out on a limb, and I just hope nobody cuts it.

Mr. John Godfrey: We're ready.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: I've been involved with first nations people since the 1950s. In the 1970s we had a special program at Lakehead University. During the summer we invited chiefs from across Canada to attend four-week sessions. We had about three of them The majority of the people who attended these programs were women. We had very few men, about two or three in three summers. Last week I had another experience in Saskatchewan. Two females and one male told me that the very best chiefs in western Canada are females. That's where I put myself out on a limb.

Here's a good example right in front of us. Chief Gail, I'm just amazed by what's going on within your community. I can understand why you're opposed to much of what's in Bill C-7 because you're already doing it. What's happening in your community is what we would like to see happen in all communities, if possible.

Therefore, I question your reluctance to ask the federal government through this bill to speed it up. Let others reap the harvest, just as you're reaping the harvest, as far as governance is concerned and the people within your community. I disagree with some of the witnesses who have appeared before us. On some reserves there are practices that are highly questionable, illegal, and immoral, and they have to change. We cannot sustain the status quo on a great number of reserves. Yours is a beautiful example of what can happen.

Why can't we speed up the process on other reserves through Bill C-7?

Á (1100)

Chief Gail Shawbonquit: I did say in my report that many other first nations across Canada are doing exactly what we are doing. Those are the examples that should be used in terms of wanting to help in building capacity at the first nations level.

However, many first nations are struggling and are working hard to get to the level we are at. It may be a small first nation with a population base of 100 or so. How do you manage and get things done with the kind of money that would come in for a population base of 100? I gave you a population base here of 784, with 310 living on reserve. We have other revenue we can rely on to help us. There are many first nations that are not in that position.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: I dispute that premise. I think a group is a group, whether it has seven, eight, or nine people involved in the decision-making process or 700, and they can come up with a model much like you have, which is excellent. It doesn't matter. The point is that people are involved in the decision-making process. There are great numbers who will never be involved with the status quo, and they never have.

There are many things that disturb me about the administrative practices, and I would like to see them curtailed. Since 1988 I've had more people come to my office dealing with first nations and Métis problems than with gun control, and many of them were not from my riding. They were from Bob Nault's and Joe Comuzzi's, and many of them were from Manitoba. I would like to see some changes take place. I will not leave it to chance, because too many people are going to suffer for too many years to come if we just sit back and say let the status quo remain.

I think what you're doing is a beautiful model. There's no doubt about it.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Dromisky.

I invite you to make closing comments for two minutes.

Chief Gail Shawbonquit: I would like to provide my closing remarks and include a response to his comments. This bill is not going to do what you want it to do. It's not going to happen. I think there are other ways to do it, and those other ways are through capacity building and being able to provide some idea of what we're talking about in terms of governance. It's not talking about it up there, as if it's up in the sky somewhere, but bringing it down to reality in terms of how we could effect these types of changes. Legislation is not going to do it.

That's the closing comment I'd like to make.

The Chair: Well, Chief Gail, thank you very much. That was very informative and impressive, and I'm really proud to be the member for the riding that you exist in, because you're an example to Canada. Hopefully the best practices will help other communities, and you certainly will have contributed.

We're joined by three colleagues, because the weather allowed their airplane to land. We have with us Anita Neville from the Liberals and Mr. Pat Martin from the NDP, and Mr. Reed Elley will be joining us shortly.

I now invite to the table, from the Moose Cree First Nation, Chief Norman Hardisty.

As we settle in, I will announce an agenda change. We will not resume our proceedings at 1 o'clock, but at 12:30. At 12:30 we will be receiving the North Shore Tribal Council, followed by Laurentian University Professor André Émond. Then we'll go back on schedule at 1:45.

Chief Norman, welcome. We'll ask you to introduce your colleague. We have 40 minutes together, and hopefully you will allow time for questions. Please proceed.

Á (1105)

Chief Norman Hardisty (Moose Cree First Nation): First of all, good morning. My name is Chief Norm Hardisty, of the Moose Cree First Nation. We are located in the James Bay area. On the map you'll see Hudson Bay, and James Bay is at the bottom. We're right at the very bottom.

I'd like to introduce my colleague, Dave Fletcher. He is a former chief of the Moose Cree First Nation. At present he's an adviser to the chief's office.

Along with my presentation I'll be making three documents available. One of them is a vision of self-governance, which is a proposed constitution. It has already gone to the minister's office and has been presented to the minister in person. Also, we have my presentation itself. The last document that has been handed to the committee is the petition by my membership in protest of the content of the First Nations Governance Act. Those are being made available to you.

We'll begin with my presentation.

The Chair: I should mention that if you have a petition you may want to leave it for the record here, but you may also want your member of Parliament to table it in the House of Commons. You have that choice.

Chief Norman Hardisty: Yes, thank you. We have copies that have been distributed.

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and honourable members of the committee. Thank you for putting this time aside to hear my presentation.

I bring you greetings from my people, the members of the Moose Cree First Nation. You and your families are warmly invited to visit our traditional territory. We welcome the opportunity to show you our culture, our way of life, and how we have adapted to the modern era.

The Moose Cree First Nation has existed in James Bay since time immemorial. We have lived in harmony with our land and its resources, and for more than 300 years we have shared our land in peace with the European peoples.

Throughout this time we have lived from the land and its rich resources. Our land has allowed us to flourish, to grow to a membership of more than 3,500 people. Our nation has grown despite the influences of the outside world, which have brought us hardship, disease, and other harsh facts of colonization. Our nation has grown despite the imposition and enforcement of laws that have prevented us from following our traditional way of life, laws imposed without consultation.

Only through our strong will and our adaptability to change have we been able to defend the benefits we obtained through signing our treaty in 1905. Time after time we have come face to face, in hearings such as this or in courtrooms, with those who question our treaty rights and want to deny their own responsibility for forcing massive changes upon us.

We have built this country with our hands and our backs and our blood. We have fought to protect Canada in your wars; wars in which we have suffered the loss of many lives and sustained many wounds. Today our people in Canada face many hardships. I hope you have had the opportunity to learn about these. People live in conditions that are typical of the fourth world: desperate poverty, deplorable housing, unclean water, no indoor plumbing, inadequate schools, no recreational facilities, and health facilities that are strained to meet even the most basic needs.

These conditions have produced catastrophes over and over again, all across Canada. I think we all know that one of the most basic causes of all of them is the lack of acknowledgement by your government of our treaty rights and your government's failure to provide adequate funding for first nations to serve their people.

Where do we look for positive change? Where do we find the answers that will correct the wrongs? Where do we look for the resources with which to begin building our communities so that they will prosper and become self-sufficient?

Your government has introduced Bill C-7 in Parliament. I know many of you honestly believe the First Nations Governance Act will change my world and change it for the better. But I beg to disagree. In less than three short years we will witness the centennial of our treaty. I know your government will have a few nice things to say about the treaty and the promises that led us to sign it. There will be, no doubt, celebrations, but they will be celebrations of empty promises, promises left unfulfilled—unless, of course, what is being celebrated is our fulfillment of our promises, the ones we made to you and have kept: to live in peace and to share our land with you.

When I think about promises, I am reminded of the promises made to our veterans who risked their lives in your wars. Your government has just now, almost 50 years after the end of World War II, finally taken a small but concrete step by offering each of our veterans $20,000. It pains me to realize that many of them have not lived long enough to even receive that offer.

And yet you tell me to trust you: Bill C-7 will look after me for the better.

Á (1110)

My reservation is 88 square miles of pure swamp. Your treaty negotiators made sure that we did not get useful land. There are no treaties there upon which we could base a forestry business. There are no more minerals to mine. There are no natural sites, such as Niagara Falls, which will attract tourists. There is nothing there upon which we can base our economy. We live in poverty, with no employment outside government operations such as the hospital.

Bill C-7 will not manufacture miracles to turn these things around.

In 1969 your government proposed the now infamous white paper, designed to lead to our total assimilation into the mainstream society. But outside of a mass exodus from our reservations into your cities where we could live on welfare, what was the vision that would give our people the capacity to enjoy more independence?

You have heard my description of our reserve. Now I ask you, who could we tax to raise our revenues? Our own people? Our own people cannot even find enough to pay for the simple things in life that your society takes for granted.

Today we are here to talk about another paper, Bill C-7. The spirit behind it is that of the white paper. This time the approach is different. You have other proposals that will work alongside of the First Nations Governance Act. I believe you have purposely kept them in the background, but it is obvious that they will complement Bill C-7. Laws such as the the First Nations Lands Management Act and the fiscal relations and institutions act will no doubt complete your plans to facilitate our own demise.

Mr. Chairman, I have studied your Bill C-7 from both a legal and a philosophical point of view. I am here with mixed feelings. I do not think what is going on here today is intended to be a serious form of consultation, and I do not want my appearance to give anyone the impression that I believe it is. However, I wanted to appear before you to explain my opposition to the bill. I am not here to present any amendments to Bill C-7, because I believe the bill and its related legislation are fundamentally flawed beyond the point that can be fixed through amendment. I believe this bill must be withdrawn in favour of a better process and approach that respects out people and our rights.

Today, Mr. Chairman, I would like to outline some of my many concerns about the First Nations Governance Act. These are concerns that you'll also here from my brothers across this country. I understand too that you are not here to debate these points as I make them, but to simply listen and to take my comments back to Ottawa.

Mr. Chairman, I have consulted with my membership, and I stand before you with the utmost confidence that I truly speak on behalf of my people.

Bill C-7 predetermines and prescribes all our governance rights. It is contrary to the Constitution of Canada and to our treaty. We want to talk to your government about self-government, but we can only do so in an open process involving our entire community in which the results are not predetermined.

We cannot accept this legislation that arbitrarily describes how our government should function. Your legislation even goes so far as to tell us when to call meetings, which person should take notes, how our employees should be paid, and on and on.

This is an illegitimate, narrow, and limited vision of our inherent right to self-government and we simply cannot accept it. Contrary to your government's statement, the one stating that this law will transfer power and control to first nations, this legislation actually gives even more authority to the minister. The minister will have the final say on election appeals, and she or he will have the powers to intervene in our financial affairs. The legislation gives us many new responsibilities and many new bureaucratic duties, but it does so without giving us any additional resources.

Á (1115)

It is off-loading, pure and simple: the transfer of fiduciary responsibilities from your government to ours, but without transferring the resources with which to fulfill them. We will not accept this abdication by your government of its responsibilities.

The law will let us pass new laws of our own, but for what purpose if we will have no means with which to enforce them?

We neither need nor accept your laws to tell us how to select our leaders. The Moose Cree First Nation has always selected its own leaders, and we will continue to do so.

Your new law will effectively require us to develop new codes. We will not have the capacity to develop or enforce these. As a result, we will find ourselves operating under the default regime described in your legislation, developed and dictated by your cabinet. In other words, we will be back to the one-size-fits-all approach that has never worked for our people and that serves only to perpetuate the colonial regime.

Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned, I have consulted my people, and they have spoken. At this time I present to you a petition opposing Bill C-7--it's in one of the documents I gave to you--signed by 53% of the registered members of the Moose Cree First Nation who are of voting age. I hope you will accept this petition as testimony of how we feel about this legislation and how we believe your government is once again attempting to do a shameful disservice to us, to the people you have promised to protect.

I do believe in positive change, and I believe there is indeed a requirement for progressive changes in the way that first nations develop. I do not come here simply to chastize your government; I'm here to offer an alternative, one that requires mutual trust and a shared goal.

The proposed governance act does not contemplate us being real partners in the development of our own constitutions. It imposes a solution that will not work.

There is no evidence that Bill C-7 needs to be rushed through Parliament. Instead, what is needed is a sincere willingness by your government to work with us as partners to develop the legislation that will permit our nations to grow and prosper.

I know you are well acquainted with Canada's Constitution, which recognizes that legislation that negatively affects aboriginal rights needs strong justification. There is no justification, let alone strong justification, for this law. Canada's Constitution wisely respects the rights of all first nations to self-government and the obligation of your government to respect us and deal with us as fellow governments.

The Moose Cree First Nation needs a constitution that will reflect the spirit of our people and our nation. We need our law, one that will define very clearly how our government will function. We need to develop this law ourselves, based on our needs and aspirations. What we need from your government is respect and recognition of our right to determine our own form of self-government.

The Moose Cree First Nation wants to move forward towards self-government and self-sufficiency. We want to be able to develop our own institutions and laws. We want to do so in a process that will involve your government as a partner, not as a dictator. We want to do so based on our beliefs and traditions in a manner that will let us control our own future.

Our constitution must be based on our treaty; it must be based on mutual trust and mutual promises. Your government must accept its obligations, just as we have always accepted our obligations to you.

I think all of you can agree with me when I say that we need to do things openly and transparently. We have nothing to hide. We are accountable to our people already, and we have no problems with promising you that we will never let that change.

I am here today not just to criticize the proposed law, but to present to you our vision. I am proud to present you with our proposal, entitled A Vision of Self-Governance, which has also been presented to the committee. We see this as a basis for building our governance system. I ask you to accept it, review it, and share it with your fellow members and the minister, Mr. Robert Nault. It is my sincere hope that we can work together for the benefit of your people and mine.

Á (1120)

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Parliament members, for your interest and attention while I delivered my thoughts on the plan my people have made for our future.

That's my presentation, Mr. Chairman. If there are any questions, I hope to be able to ask my colleague to assist me in answering them.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation.

We'll have a four-minute round. That's four minutes per party, and it includes the question and the answer--preferably a short question so our guest has time to respond.

Mr. Elley is next for four minutes. Welcome.

Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I apologize that we were not able to be here at the beginning of these meetings. There are many things over which members of Parliament have no control, and one of them is the weather.

I want to thank the Whitefish Lake First Nation for the use of their traditional territory, as we come to hear from you today. I want to congratulate you for your submission.

I've attended a number of these hearings across the country now, and sometimes in the emotional environment that this produces we hear a lot of anger, a lot of bitterness, but we often don't get substantive papers that tell us what aboriginal peoples want across the nation. You have provided us with that and I am very grateful to you. It allows us to see what you're thinking and what you would see in place of what is here.

Of course, the First Nations Governance Act purports to approach two basic things--financial accountability and band governance through elections. There are other things that have been added to it. I know you've given us a very substantive proposal.

What we've heard, of course, is that the consultation process has not been correct, and aboriginal people feel excluded from this process. I'm wondering if you could share with us how we might be able to step back from that, and what you think we need to do now to incorporate the kinds of ideas and beliefs you think should be part of the mix, before anything is brought before the Parliament of Canada to become legislation.

Chief Norman Hardisty: First of all, I apologize. I would also like to thank the Whitefish First Nation for allowing us on their traditional territory.

I want to emphasize a few points about financial accountability. What's the other one you mentioned?

Á (1125)

Mr. Reed Elley: The whole issue of governance, with band elections and that sort of thing.

Chief Norman Hardisty: As a first nation we've always been transparent and accountable. As far as elections go, we've always been able to run fair elections. That's never been a problem. We've always lived up to any accountability that was put on the Moose Cree First Nation.

We've always done well administratively, financially, and management-wise. We've even done well with program services, and I hope we'll be moving on.

Maybe I could ask my colleague to touch on the rest of it.

Mr. Dave Fletcher (Adviser to the Chief, Moose Cree First Nation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

You asked a very fundamental question about the competition processes that would have to be carried out with the introduction of the First Nations Governance Act. Perhaps if you take a look at the types of protests you've heard across the country, they've all alluded to the fact that this whole thing was due to the minister introducing Bill C-61--prior to renaming it, of course. It happened a bit too quickly.

Any meaningful consultation with our people should have happened prior to to the minister introducing the FNGA in Parliament. That's our biggest beef. If we're going to be involved in any legislation, we have to be involved right from the beginning. When I say “we”, I'm talking about the grassroots people. I'm talking about those people I left behind on my reserve. Those are the people who have to be very instrumental in writing up legislation that will affect every one of us.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Stan Dromisky): Thank you very much.

Now we'll go to Pat Martin for four minutes.

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

Thank you to both of you for your brief. I represent the NDP, and we've been working closely with first nations across the country in their opposition to the FNGA for just the reasons you've itemized. Thank you for putting it as clearly as you did as well. It's an excellent brief.

I agree with you. You're wise not to trust the federal government on the FNGA, because we view it as a calculated and premeditated attempt to undermine and diminish your existing treaty rights. I don't think there's any question there's a growing consensus that it's a very deliberate, conscious move on the government's part, and you're wise to stand in opposition.

The thing I will raise is that you've mentioned you will not accept the imposition of these new governance codes. In that case, the way the bill stands, they would be imposed on you anyway by the default mechanism. That's going to happen in 633 first nations right across the country. The cost is going to be staggering, in terms of energy, resources, and money, which will be coming right out of the A base of the Indian Affairs budget. The money that would otherwise go to help education, housing, and basic needs will be spent on ramming this down the throats of people who don't want it.

Have you thought about the dollar figures that the government is throwing around--$110 million--to impose this on nations that don't want it, and have you any views on that?

Chief Norman Hardisty: I think we have to be fair if we want to make a judgment call on any type of resources we're going to need. Maybe what I can ask is, what is the government being funded to do? How much was the government funded to do this type of work? We need that type of funding also. It's always been my belief that if anyone is going to govern the Moose Cree First Nation, it'll be the Moose Cree First Nation people, not me, as chief, or the council. It will be the people within, at the grassroots level. I've always believed that if you're going to do something right, do it once and do it properly.

In this case, we're talking about millions of dollars just to accomplish what I proposed to the committee and to Minister Nault--our constitution, a constitution that will be ratified by my people--and from there move on to hopefully positive negotiations with the government on how we will self-govern ourselves as a first nation.

Á (1130)

Mr. Pat Martin: Would it be your recommendation to withdraw Bill C-7, or to seek to amend it--back up a few steps and start all over again?

Chief Norman Hardisty: Okay, sure.

I think the intention is not to...I can tell you right now that if you look at Bill C-7, we're doing 80% or 90% of that work already. We've done most of it, yes.

I think it's not to reject Bill C-7 as a whole. There are contents within Bill C-7 that simply are not going to work for us. What our petition, our referendum, is saying is you either withdraw Bill C-7 or make appropriate amendments to Bill C-7 to require that it be put before members of our first nation for approval by referendum. That's what our petition is saying. We do object to certain contents of the First Nations Governance Act, but not to the whole thing.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

For the Liberal side, four minutes.

Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey: Welcome.

I would like to follow up on the last remarks you made--and I've gone through your document, including the proposed plan to develop a constitution as well. I'm wondering, because I didn't see it in your presentation, if you might like to outline in more detail the amendments you would have us make if the bill is to go forward, even if you just give us the headlines or the main areas of concern.

Chief Norman Hardisty: My colleague will answer that.

Mr. Dave Fletcher: I believe if you take a look at some of the aspects of your proposed act, one of the things that clearly stands out is the fact that many of the first nations in Canada, including ours back home, operate under a band custom selection process for our leadership.

The proposed governance act, as it is written now, does not give us the capacity to go on to practice those traditional aspects for our selection processes. That's one point. I think we have the capacity—we have the right—to say this is the way we've always selected our leadership and this is the way we're going to continue.

The other thing, of course, is—and it will touch some of Pat's comments and his questions—when you talk about capacity building, somehow more has to be indicated about where the resources are going to come from. That is our basic beef respecting capacity.

We had to borrow money to come here, because we simply didn't have the money to appear here. There are provisions through this hearing process to pay for accommodations and travel and so on, but they didn't pay to provide the written submissions.

Those are the types of things we've talked about previously, that there are no resources available for the first nations to be able to accept the governance code as it is.

The Chair: Is there anyone else from the Liberal side? We have one minute left.

Mr. Hubbard.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: You mentioned in your other submission here your annual budget, and the previous witnesses have given indications about that. Do you have many resources of your own, or how much of that $30 million comes from your relationship with the federal government and its different departments?

Á (1135)

Chief Norman Hardisty: I would say that of any funding we have now, about 95% is from the government.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: And what's your management? One of the worst things we hear about concerns third-party management. Sometimes there are difficulties, and the third-party management is not very acceptable in terms of the way the department works with first nations. Have you ever encountered that type of problem with your...?

Chief Norman Hardisty: I'm very glad to say we have never experienced third-party management or any type of co-management. We have done well. We have done well to adapt to what has been put in front of us.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: And concerning Bill C-7 and accountability, as you indicated, there is no problem about how transparent you are in your work?

Chief Norman Hardisty: We are very transparent, not only to the government but also to our people. As I heard one of the previous chiefs saying, we make our information available to our membership too, at the office.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We have one minute for closing remarks, if there is any comment you wish to make.

Chief Norman Hardisty: Thank you again for giving me this opportunity. I really feel, when we talk about self-government, when we talk about constitution, and when we talk about this Bill C-7, it all boils down to one thing: that I sit here as a servant to my people. I believe this is the case with the panel here, and also within this building. I am a servant to my people, and it's very important that we take a look at the grassroots people, the people I serve. These are the people who are going to say what kind of government I'm going to have back home. I think it's really important that we all remember that.

Thank you very much.

The Chair: You are correct, and we thank you very much for an excellent presentation.

We now invite to the table, from the M'Chigeeng First Nation, Alan Corbiere, research director, and Joe Hare, councillor.

Again, we have 30 minutes together. I will ask you to introduce the colleagues accompanying you and proceed with your presentation immediately, hopefully followed by questions.

Mr. Joe Hare (Councillor, M'Chigeeng First Nation): It'll take us a couple of seconds to get organized, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: It's your time. We're on 30 minutes.

Mr. Alan Corbiere (Research Coordinator, M'Chigeeng First Nation): Witness speaks in his native language]

Today we are here to present our concerns to the standing committee, and we thank you for your ears and for opening your hearts to hearing what we have to say today. On behalf of M'Chigeeng First Nation, I extend to you our warmest welcome.

We would like to start by showing you a wampum belt that we had reproduced. This wampum belt was given in 1764 after the siege of Detroit, after Pontiac's war, as well as after 1763, the year of the Royal Proclamation. This is the wampum belt that describes the government-to-government relationship that exists between the British colonial authorities and its successor, the Canadian government, and the Anishnabek people across Turtle Island.

This is what is called a covenant chain. And here we have two people, one representing the British Crown and the other representing the Anishnabek people. Both of their hearts are represented, and both of their hearts are connected and both are bound by this chain. It's called a covenant chain and it is made of silver. It was made of silver because it's valuable, as well as easy to remove the tarnish or rust. It's also a very strong material. It symbolizes the relationship that exists between our people. That's where we are coming from today. This is our history that forms our opinions about this Bill C-7.

As I mentioned, we as the Anishnabek people view ourselves as being in alliance with the British colonial authorities and the successor, the Canadian government. We were never conquered. We have, as is guaranteed in the Canadian Constitution, an inherent right to self-government and that our aboriginal and treaty rights are to be respected as well as upheld and affirmed.

In 1862--

Á (1140)

The Chair: One moment, please.

We cannot allow signs in the room, so I'll ask you to remove the signs, please. And I will tell you that the clock is running, so we're taking time away from our witnesses.

Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Chair, a point of order.

The Chair: I've made a ruling on the signs. We'll wait till the signs are removed, please.

Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Chair, could you recognize the point of order--point of privilege, if you like?

The Chair: Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: On a point of privilege, Mr. Chair, I don't know where in the by-laws or in the rules of our standing committees it says anything about signage in a meeting room.

The Chair: Right here.

So we'll ask you to remove the signs. You are taking time from the witnesses. The clock is running.

Mr. Pat Martin: Well, Mr. Chairman, you're doing an injustice to the witness.

Mr. Joe Hare: Why should it be taken away from our presentation because of what other people are doing? I think you have it in your discretion to give us our full 30 minutes.

The Chair: We're not that rigid. We'll be fair with you. But if we're going to be standing all day with signs, we may as well get in the airplane and leave right now for Thomson.

We want the signs removed from the room. You're doing a disservice to the witnesses. Thank you very much.

We will give you back that time we just used.

Mr. Alan Corbiere: In 1862 we had three chiefs in M'Chigeeng, which was then called Mitchikewedinong, meaning the place of the spear, place of the fish harpoon. It is a place where our Chief Debassige looked to find a means of livelihood for the people and the coming generations. That was to be on fish as well as cultivation of produce.

At that time we had three chiefs in that band, Chiefs Itawashkash, Debassige, and Paimoquonaishkung. It was Chief Paimoquonaishkung who had written a petition in 1862 stating the effects of this government-to-government relationship, as well as the wampum belt we just held up.

Further, in 1862, the chiefs of Manitoulin had together written a petition to the Governor General complaining of the conduct of the local superintendent, Ironside, in 1860 during the visit of the Prince of Wales. At that time, Mr. Ironside had tried to award medals to people who were not chiefs. In effect, he was trying to make chiefs. In the petition, which was written in Ojibway, it was said and this is a direct quotation:

We cannot help making this reflection: to come to the point at once, are we to make new chiefs to deprive us of our land? And this is not the first time it has been attempted. As for us, we wish to choose our own chiefs in accordance with Indian custom.

We have had as chiefs for a long time those descended from our ancestors, and these are those whom we wish to have over us.

Times have changed. We no longer have hereditary chiefs, but the custom for us is that the people are the ones to select who the chief is and how we are to govern ourselves. That is the custom.

In 1888, Sir John A. MacDonald was the one who proposed an elective system to be imposed on the first nations communities. He stated at that time:

It is worthy of consideration whether legislative measures should not be adopted for the establishment of some kind of municipal system among such bands as are found sufficiently advanced to justify the experiment being tried. It is hoped that a system may be adopted which will have the effect of accustoming the Indians to the modes of government prevalent in the white communities surrounding them, and that it will thus tend to prepare them for earlier amalgamation with the general population of the country.

We are talking here about the same arguments that are being made today with Bill C-7. The people of M'Chigeeng are the ones who are looking to combat assimilation as well as amalgamation. We want to be able to govern ourselves in a manner we see fit. We have been accountable. Our chief and council and administration have been accountable to Indian Affairs and, more importantly, to our membership.

Like Chief Gail Shawbonquit and the Moose Cree First Nation chief, our chief and council also post the minutes in our band council. Not only that, but we also have channel TV 22, a local community channel, on which all of our chief and council meetings are televised. There is ample opportunity for our people to know what their chief and council are doing. There are also a lot of appeals that we deal with in a timely manner as well.

Back to the usurpation of our traditional customs of appointing chiefs, in 1897 the deputy superintendent of Indian Affairs also stated:

The department's policy has, therefore, been gradually to do away with the hereditary and introduce an elective system, so making (as far as circumstances permit) these chiefs and councillors occupy the position in a band which a municipal council does in a white community.

The point we are trying to explicitly make is that the way and manner in which you govern your community is also a means to assimilation. This is what we, as Anishnabek people, are trying to fight.

As Chief Nelson Toulouse mentioned this morning, we are undergoing a period of cultural revitalization. It is during this time when we need more than two years, the terms as allotted by--specified in--Bill C-7 to undergo and introduce a more culturally based form of governance at the community level.

This is what we are asking--that this bill, Bill C-7, actually respect our right to govern ourselves, and that the inherent right to self-government be respected as outlined in the Constitution.

In 1999 the M'Chigeeng First Nation formed a governance committee. In November of that year the Department of Indian Affairs funded the custom governance initiative. DIAND actually provided funds for us to develop our custom election code. We were provided with the conversion policy, which we followed because we thought it would expedite the process. Throughout the winter of 1999 and the spring of 2000, the M'Chigeeng First Nation, the chief and council as well as the committee, had many meetings to develop this custom election code. They also did numerous mail-outs as well as community sessions. Then in July 2000 we had a plebiscite in which the custom code was accepted by the voting membership, the electorate, of the M'Chigeeng First Nation. In November 2000 the M'Chigeeng First Nation submitted this to the Department of Indian Affairs.

On November 20, 2000, the Department of Indian Affairs came out with their new regulations on the custom code conversion policy. Initially, they did not confirm our custom election code. They said they had changed the conversion policy. So we requested the second conversion policy. Upon receiving it, we saw that it was actually the same conversion policy. So in our eyes we had fulfilled all the requirements of the Department of Indian Affairs. We danced to the tune, but we were still denied our custom election code under section 74 of the Indian Act.

When that plebiscite was held, we also had a by-election. The results of the by-election were accepted by the Department of Indian Affairs, but the plebiscite, which was held at the same time, was not accepted for whatever reason.

In September 2001 the M'Chigeeng First Nation had its first ever election under that community custom election code. The results of that election were not recognized by the Department of Indian Affairs. Therefore, we are operating under an unrecognized chief and council. But the people of the M'Chigeeng First Nation recognize this chief and council. We have had no protests regarding the way the election was conducted, because it was approved by the people. It was not approved by Minister Nault or his department.

In July 2002 members of the M'Chigeeng First Nation marched to Ottawa to hand deliver a 140-year-old petition, which I quoted at the beginning, to Minister Nault or Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, stating that we wish to choose our own chiefs in accordance with Indian custom. No representative from the Canadian government was there to receive us. We marched to Parliament Hill and held a rally, but we were not greeted or met at that time.

Because the chief and council have not been recognized, Minister Nault and his department have withheld funds for our housing program, our health program, as well as numerous other programs. It all hinges on the custom election code that we, the people of M'Chigeeng, have voted yes to. So we already have experience with the manner in which Minister Nault is going to deal with people who do not do business as he sees or wills.

The M'Chigeeng First Nation was threatened with third-party management at that time, even though we received a note from the regional director of Indian Affairs funding services, Ron Hanley, congratulating the M'Chigeeng First Nation on a job well done and stating that the first nation was once again in a strong financial position. So in terms of accountability, which Bill C-7 purports to enhance, the M'Chigeeng First Nation already has accountability and a strong financial position. It was only threatened once we did not conform to the rules of the Department of Indian Affairs and Minister Nault.

At this time we see that with this kind of regime, Bill C-7 will actually strengthen Minister Nault's hold upon our custom election code, as well as our chief and council. As long as the chief and council can be disposed of by the Minister of Indian Affairs, we feel his power has not been truly relinquished. It is his will that will ultimately be exercised if he has the power to pull the purse strings, which he has done in the past and is currently doing.

We are currently in litigation over this particular point, stressing that we have the inherent right to select our leadership in the manner we see fit as Anishinabek people, and in the manner as we are Anishinabek.

I'd now like to turn it over to Councillor Joe Hare.

Á (1150)

Mr. Joe Hare: Thank you, Alan. Good afternoon.

I want to speak on some of the questions that were raised earlier because they apply to us very directly. I heard this morning that this bill was supposed to help first nations do a better job, but they're already doing a good job, so why the concern?

The way I look at this is when you control people and put them in a box in a closet for 140 years, as in our case with M'Chigeeng, you stifle a people. That's the effect this Indian Act has had on our people, M'Chigeeng, and other first nations. This bill being proposed by Minister Nault will carry that much further. As a government you make the first nations people subservient. They have to listen to somebody, even though what they do makes common sense and is what human beings all over the world do.

You take away motivation from our people when you subdue them. They have to ask you for permission to do things that are normally done elsewhere. You take away the ambition of the people. You take their future away. That's the impact of the kinds of colonial policies, regulations, and laws we've had to live under. You take our freedom away. I don't think that's what should be done to the first nations people.

You do a lot of psychological damage to the young people especially when you make them feel useless and unwanted. So it's important to look at that aspect. To continue to do harm to the first nations people is a sin. I think you should go back to Mr. Nault and tell him to smarten up and take this legislation away, because he does have options, as we all know.

For example, he negotiates with first nations on self-government agreements. In those agreements, the parties agree that many sections of the Indian Act no longer apply. So why can't the minister treat us, especially in M'Chigeeng, in the same way? He has the option of telling us we can conduct our elections as we have done and not punish us for not listening to him.

That's exactly what he has done. We have left copies of a newspaper we put out for the public. It outlines the way the Minister of Indian Affairs continues to punish M'Chigeeng. It's not fair. It is not something the Government of Canada should be doing to the first nations people.

I think the option should be put in place in this proposed bill that those first nations that want to elect their leadership in their own ways by their own definitions and their own customs and traditions should be allowed to do so without being penalized.

So that's our position today. We don't like it at all. I think it's a damn shame that we have to put up with this kind of crap.

Á (1155)

Pardon the language, but I get upset.

I've been fighting the systems imposed on Indian people all of my life, and so have these other people. We've seen many ministers come and go. One of them was from here, Doug Frith, who we met with right in this building when he was Minister of Indian Affairs. They all propose to make things better for us, but they never do. We've seen prime ministers come and go. We always bring the same message: you don't need to keep your thumbs on the Indian people; you don't need to put them down; and you don't need to abuse them.

So one more time, I am appealing to this committee to make it carry our voices and our messages to the Government of Canada.

Mr. Chair, when we had the Indian Act elections in our community, there was almost always an election appeal. Something went wrong. The last three elections we've had, the general election and two by-elections, we had no problems and no appeals whatsoever.

So I think the passing of this bill should be delayed. You should have more meetings all summer across Canada and talk to more first nations people—at least until we have a new Minister of Indian Affairs and a new Prime Minister.

At worst, in fairness to what we are doing, we have taken our case to court. It has not been heard yet by the Federal Court, but it is scheduled to be heard this summer. I think there ought to be a delay in any legislation pertaining to first nations people until our position has been decided by the court. Hopefully, the court will have more sense than the ministers of the Crown and they will see that what we do makes more common sense. It uplifts the people, giving them back freedom. It gives us our future back and it provides for us to be more ambitious, to plan, and to do all kinds of good things.

So don't keep us down any more. We're tired of it.

Megweetch.

Â (1200)

The Chair: This concludes your presentation?

Mr. Alan Corbiere: I just wanted to add one more thing.

We actually request that in the bill the minister not hold the ultimate power to confirm a chief and council, and that some alternative be implemented, such as a senate of elders or a senate of chiefs at the tribal council level to be the ones confirming or denying whether an election has been adhered to and whether it conforms to the said community's practices.

Furthermore, M'Chigeeng is named after a spearhead used in fishing, and it is a place where we still engage in fishing activities. Under this bill, it specifically states that despite our treaty and aboriginal rights, we will now fall under the Department of Fisheries and Oceans' regulations. We perceive that to be either a derogation of our aboriginal rights or an abrogation of our treaty rights.

So that's specifically mentioned in there. I just stole somebody's thunder, but they'll have more to say.

I just wanted to add this just because of the fact that when Chief Debassige came to settle at M'Chigeeng, he was looking for a place where we, his descendants, could derive a livelihood based on resources on the land. He found M'Chigeeng to be a place where there's ample fish and arable land.

We see this bill as being one of the things that's going to confine us to our reserve rather than to our territory, which encompasses a great deal more land and water than is specified in this bill.

Megweetch.

The Chair: Okay, thank you very much.

We will have a two-minute round, and we will have to keep to the time because we have only half an hour or less for lunch.

Mr. Elley, two minutes for the question and the answer.

Mr. Reed Elley: Thank you very much for coming and sharing this with us. What you have shared is a deplorable story, that you have negotiated with the Government of Canada in good faith and have been let down so badly in this way. I, for one, would feel very, very sad about that. It's scandalous.

However, I think what this shows me is something that I've heard across the country, in whatever capacity that has been, in terms of Indian Affairs, that what we have here is a bill that tries to have a one-size-fits-all approach to native people, to native governance. What we're finding is that, of course, native communities across this country are quite different from each other and there isn't uniformity in your cultures and that sort of thing. There are many things that bring you together, but there are differences.

So here we have another difference, and this governance act does not fit your situation. Many of the nations tell us they don't have the capacity. They're too small, or they don't have enough money, or whatever, to fit this sort of thing.

Am I making sense on this?

Â (1205)

Mr. Alan Corbiere: Yes.

Mr. Reed Elley: Would you like to elaborate on how you feel about that?

Mr. Alan Corbiere: We could always use more money. Actually, just to come up with a policy, the amount of time to read the bill, to compare it with the Indian Act, as well as to look at the inherent right of policy and the Constitution, just the amount of work that went into coming up with some of the arguments we have.... We aren't funded to do this kind of work, as you are provided with funds. I imagine you are salaried or provided with an honorarium to do all this reading and to travel around and listen to people. But all of us here are council members from M'Chigeeng, as well as delegates. We don't receive that type of money just to come up with a very deliberate argument and pick apart this piece of legislation.

If we had our own source of revenue, we would be able to, with greater access to resources in our territory. That's what we're always asking about and want a bigger piece of.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Martin, two minutes.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you for this amazing bit of history, leading to where you find yourself now.

Because we only have two minutes, I'm going to try to stay with the money issue too. I'm horrified to hear, here and elsewhere across the country, that your support of the FNGA or your right to have your own election codes is somehow tied to either financial reward or financial punishment.

In other words, you and others feel that if you don't buy into the imposition of these sweeping changes, you'll be threatened with revenue being cut off or third-party management and so on.

This isn't the first time this has come up. Can you explain how you feel this may be tied together?

Mr. Joe Hare: First of all, when that kind of treatment happens, the people begin to have doubts in their leadership. They say that what you're doing may not be entirely right and appropriate and proper. Secondly, it is the people who are being punished, through denial of services and programs.

The thing that bothers me tremendously is that the minister and some of the people who work with the department say funding is not affected. But I'm here to tell you that they are lying, because even today when we ask for funds for certain programs, they say they can't fund us because they don't recognize the chief and council.

To me, that's so absurd, and when you speak up about that and try to argue with some common sense, they don't hear. They just absorb, and they don't do anything.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Ms. Neville, two minutes.

Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): Thank you.

Thank you very much for your presentation, for the history. I'm intrigued by your comments.

Can you tell us what specifically the department disagreed with in terms of your custom code? I want to know the basis of the disagreement.

Are you aware that with the new act the requirement for ministerial approval of the custom code will be removed?

Mr. Joe Hare: We're very much aware of that, but what we do not like is that in terms of the elections...we had by-elections, which Mr. Corbiere referred to, and they recognized those elections as being legitimate, but they would not recognize the results of what the people said. That just doesn't make sense.

The other area of concern, specifically, is that the number of people who came to vote was not as much as they thought there should be voting. But we emphasize that the opportunity to vote is important. Whether people exercise that opportunity or not, that's up to them as individuals and that's their personal choice, but they were given the opportunity.

Then the other part of your question is that they wanted us to do mail-in ballots. We've heard from other first nations that those are fraught with problems. We want our people to come home to our community to vote, so that they will get to know the leadership they are voting on and will get reconnected with our community, because many of them leave home. Over 55% of our membership has left our first nations. Some of the children of those members who have left have never been to our first nations community. So we think they should reconnect and be part of this re-energizing of our culture and our values and the things that we think are dear and important to all of us.

Â (1210)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

That concludes this part of our public hearings. We thank you very much for an excellent presentation.

We will suspend proceedings until 12:35, colleagues, and then we'll proceed with the North Shore Tribal Council at that time.