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 31, 2003

0925

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

Grand Chief Carol McBride (Algonquin Nation Secretariat)

0930

0935

0940

The Chair

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

0945

Grand Chief Carol McBride

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Grand Chief Carol McBride

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Grand Chief Carol McBride

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Grand Chief Carol McBride

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

0950

Grand Chief Carol McBride

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Grand Chief Carol McBride

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Grand Chief Carol McBride

The Chair

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

Grand Chief Carol McBride

0955

The Chair

Grand Chief Carol McBride

The Chair

Grand Chief Carol McBride

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Grand Chief Carol McBride

1000

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Grand Chief Carol McBride

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Grand Chief Carol McBride

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Grand Chief Carol McBride

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.)

Grand Chief Carol McBride

1005

The Chair

Grand Chief Carol McBride

The Chair

Grand Chief Jimmy Hunter (Algonquin Anishinabeg Nation Tribal Council)

1010

1015

1020

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

1025

Grand Chief Jimmy Hunter

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Grand Chief Jimmy Hunter

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Grand Chief Jimmy Hunter

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Stan Dromisky

1030

Grand Chief Jimmy Hunter

Mr. Stan Dromisky

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

1035

Grand Chief Jimmy Hunter

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Grand Chief Jimmy Hunter

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Grand Chief Jimmy Hunter

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Grand Chief Jimmy Hunter

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Grand Chief Jimmy Hunter

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

1040

Grand Chief Jimmy Hunter

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Grand Chief Jimmy Hunter

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Stan Dromisky

Grand Chief Jimmy Hunter

Mr. Stan Dromisky

Grand Chief Jimmy Hunter

Mr. Stan Dromisky

The Chair

Grand Chief Jimmy Hunter

1045

The Chair

Grand Chief Jimmy Hunter

The Chair

Chief Steeve Mathias (Long Point First Nation)

The Chair

Chief Steeve Mathias

1050

1055

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief Steeve Mathias

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief Steeve Mathias

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

1100

Chief Steeve Mathias

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief Steeve Mathias

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief Steeve Mathias

The Chair

Chief Steeve Mathias

The Chair

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

Chief Steeve Mathias

1105

Mr. Yvan Loubier

Chief Steeve Mathias

1110

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Chief Steeve Mathias

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Chief Steeve Mathias

1115

The Chair

Chief Steeve Mathias

The Chair

Chief Lance Haymond (Eagle Village First Nation - Kipawa)

1120

1125

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief Lance Haymond

1130

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief Lance Haymond

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief Lance Haymond

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief Lance Haymond

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Chief Lance Haymond

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Chief Lance Haymond

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Chief Lance Haymond

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Chief Lance Haymond

1135

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Chief Lance Haymond

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

Chief Lance Haymond

Mr. Yvan Loubier

1140

Chief Lance Haymond

The Chair

Chief Lance Haymond

The Chair

Chief Lance Haymond

The Chair

Chief Lance Haymond

The Chair

Chief Lance Haymond

The Chair

Chief Lance Haymond

The Chair

Mr. Stan Dromisky

Chief Lance Haymond

Mr. Stan Dromisky

1145

Chief Lance Haymond

The Chair

Chief Lance Haymond

The Chair

Chief Lance Haymond

The Chair

Chief James Papatie (Kitcisakik Anicinape Community)

1150

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Chief James Papatie

1155

1200

1205

1210

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

1215

Chief James Papatie

The Chair

Mr. Stan Dromisky

Chief James Papatie

1220

The Chair

Chief Harry St-Denis (Wolf Lake First Nation)

1225

The Chair

Chief Harry St-Denis

The Chair

1230

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief Harry St-Denis

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief Harry St-Denis

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief Harry St-Denis

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief Harry St-Denis

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief Harry St-Denis

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief Harry St-Denis

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

1235

Chief Harry St-Denis

The Chair

Chief Harry St-Denis

1240

The Chair

Mr. Daniel Pien (As Individual)

The Chair

Mr. Daniel Pien

1245

The Chair

Mr. Daniel Pien

The Chair

Mr. Edouard Kistabish (As Individual)

The Chair

Mr. Edouard Kistabish

The Chair

Mr. Lucien Wabanonik (As Individual)

1250

The Chair

Mr. Albert Tenasco (As Individual)

1255

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources

NUMBER 057

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Monday, March 31, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0925)

[Translation]

The Chair (Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.)): Order, please. The committee continues its examination of Bill C-7, an Act respecting leadership selection, administration and accountability of Indian bands, and to make related amendments to other Acts.

[English]

I`m pleased to welcome, from the Algonquin Nation Secretariat, Grand Chief Carol McBride. Welcome, Grand Chief. We have 45 minutes together. We invite you to make your presentation, which we hope will allow some time for questions.

Grand Chief Carol McBride (Algonquin Nation Secretariat): Thank you.

Good morning. On behalf of our member communities, I would like to welcome you to the northern edge of Algonquin territory, and I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak to the committee. I`m glad to be here with my fellow grand chief Jimmy Hunter and other Algonquin leaders and people who are present today. The last time I saw this committee was in Ottawa in the fall of 2002, when we made a presentation on Bill C-6 related to specific claims. Although it is good to see you come to northern Quebec, it would have been much better if you could have taken the time to visit our communities to get a better idea of our circumstances. Nonetheless, we will take this opportunity to let you know our thoughts.

I would like to start by giving you a profile of our nation. There are 10 communities that make up the Algonquin Nation, nine in Quebec and one in Ontario. Our total population is over 9,000. We still hold aboriginal title and rights over our traditional territories, which include the lands, lakes, and rivers draining into the Ottawa River on both sides of the Ontario-Quebec border. The reason we still hold aboriginal title is that other governments chose to ignore our rights and take our lands and resources without treaty, without our consent, and without compensation. The opening up of our territories has brought wealth and prosperity to others, but it has left us in a state of poverty and underdevelopment. Even basic things other first nations take for granted have been denied to us. Until the 1960s most of our communities did not even have reserve lands or the programs and services that go with them. Even today 25% of so-called landless Indian bands in Canada that do not have reserves are Algonquin, and for those of us who do have reserve lands, in many cases they are too small to provide housing for our own population, let alone economic development.

The Algonquin Nation Secretariat is a tribal council that represents the rights and interests of three Algonquin first nations, Barriere Lake, Wolf Lake, and Timiskaming. As grand chief, I have been requested to make this presentation here today.

We understand that the stated objectives of Bill C-7 are to promote good governance, accountability, and economic development. The Minister of Indian Affairs has said, and so does Bill C-7, this is just an interim step pending the negotiations and implementation of the inherent right of self-government. The minister also said this bill, if passed into law, will improve the quality of life of our members at the community level. Our communities wholeheartedly support good governance, accountability, and economic development. We are also supportive of measures that would assist us in moving towards recognition and implementation of our inherent rights of self-government, and we are deeply committed to improving the circumstances of our members at the community levels. Unfortunately, Bill C-7 will do none of this. In fact, it will take us further away from the crucial objectives. I would like to take some time to explain why.

Perhaps one of the few benefits of not having reserves is that many of our communities remained entirely outside the Indian Act until the 1960s and the 1970s. As for the members of our tribal council, Wolf Lake and Barriere Lake have never operated under the election provisions of the Indian Act. They have always operated according to their customs, which have now been codified. Timiskaming developed and adopted its own custom elections code a few years ago. Our customs, practices, and traditions are what we are and who we are, and we have struggled for generations to protect these things.

One of our major concerns with Bill C-7 is that it interferes directly with a core area of our inherent right to govern ourselves, leadership selection, and broadens the powers of the Minister of Indian Affairs to meddle in our internal affairs. It will also make our traditional forms of government creatures of federal legislation, cutting our bonds with the customs, practices, and traditions of our ancestors. This is a direct assault on our core values and our identity, not to mention our constitutional rights.

I am not a lawyer and I am not able to give you a full legal analysis on this point, but I'd like to direct your attention to a legal opinion prepared by David Nahwegahbow, an Anishnabe lawyer from Ontario, for the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs in the summer of 2002. Although his opinion focuses on Bill C-61, as it was then called, the majority of his analysis and his concerns apply directly to Bill C-7 as well. I would like to table the legal opinion with the committee, with the hope that it will assist you in coming to a better understanding of the threats posed by the bill.

¿ (0930)

You should be aware that this bill also ignores the two watershed reports that dealt directly with Indian self-government, the Penner report in the 1980s, which had all-party approval, and the final report and recommendations of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, which was released in 1996. It should concern you greatly that this Bill C-7 initiative has completely ignored the consultation and recommendations of these important reports. Why is it that the minister has chosen to bypass and effectively scuttle these two landmark reports? The royal commission final report acknowledged that tinkering with the Indian Act would only perpetuate the status quo. It also said governance could not improve unless our communities had greater access to lands and resources within our traditional territories and the self-sufficiency that comes from a healthier economy.

We don't need legislation to improve our economies, we need better access to the lands and resources within our traditional territories and more benefits from the revenues that come from them. But this government has done nothing to assist us in getting Quebec or Ontario to provide us with a fair share of the resources or revenues. In fact, this government and this minister walked away from two signed agreements with the community of Barriere Lake that were directly aimed at improving local living conditions and access to lands and resources. I never thought the day would come when I would say some of our communities are getting treated better by the separatist government of Quebec than by the federal government, but that is what is happening at Barriere Lake.

If you haven't already, you should refer to the royal commission final report and the Penner committee report, because they will provide you with a much clearer idea of what is required to address the challenges we now face with respect to governance. If you ask me to show you an alternative to the shallow vision of Bill C-7, I say, take a close look at the royal commission recommendations, because that is where you will find it.

Another thing I want to speak to you about is the process by which this bill was developed and the way it is being described. We have heard over and over again from the minister and his officials that this responds to the wishes of the first nations and that it has been influenced by the biggest Indian consultation in history. I am being kind when I tell you they are misleading claims.

In the fall of 2001 Indian Affairs carried out a series of so-called consultations in Algonquin territory. These can only be described as a sham. I would like to table with the committee a summary of the results of these so-called consultations, so you can see for yourself. A total of 55 people were consulted, compared to an Algonquin population of over 9,000, and from reports we have received, of those 55 a good number were not even Indians, but local non-native people. At the same time, the Department of Indian Affairs has made no honest effort to provide us with resources to analyse this bill or to listen to our views. In fact, our own opposition to this bill and the opposition of the vast majority of elected political leaders and their communities have been completely ignored by Indian Affairs.

All of this makes for a rather embarrassing contrast with the consultations and results of the Penner report on self-government and the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. The recommendations contained in those reports were the result of an authentic and sincere effort to consult not only first nations, but Canadians at large. The royal commission had three rounds of public hearings, intervener programs to encourage first nations to participate, and a lengthy report that backed up the recommendations. In comparison, the Department of Indian Affairs consultations can only be described as a cynical exercise in double talk. Taking this into account, the resulting opposition to this bill should come as no surprise.

¿ (0935)

The royal commission concluded that the Department of Indian Affairs should have no role in reforming Indian policy, because the department was too tainted by conflict of interest and because its whole culture was based on control and manipulation of the first nations. The sham consultations and the process that has led to the creation of this bill are good evidence of what the royal commission was talking about.

As I mentioned at the outset, we are fully in support of accountability, democracy, and transparency. We are actively applying these principles, and if we are given the respect we deserve, we will succeed. What I would like to know is why the Government of Canada isn't also prepared to live by these principles.

Bill C-7 focuses a lot on financial accountability, but we don't see the same from this government. For over 130 years the Government of Canada has administered trust funds for the Timiskaming First Nation, but it will not provide us with an audit. It refuses to account for the management of our trust fund and cannot even provide us with ledgers and trust fund account statements. Instead, we are forced to locate and gather the records at the archives and other locations and spend years just putting the information together, filing a claim, and taking a place in line. Bill C-6 on specific claims won't improve our prospects of resolving those claims either, for reasons I explained to you when I made a presentation on the bill this past fall. I sure would like to see Indian Affairs come and explain their mismanagement of our assets in a public meeting at our community hall, or even provide us with an audit, but this will never happen. There is also a small question of the many millions of dollars that have been spent on railroading Bill C-7 through Parliament, despite the massive opposition of our leaders and our people. Is the Government of Canada prepared to account for that? Taking all this into consideration, I don't think our government has much to teach us on accountability.

Bill C-7 also talks a lot about democratic principles, and yet for the past two years the current Minister of Indian Affairs and his officials have been on a virtual campaign to discredit and bypass the elected Indian leadership of this country. He won't meet with the chiefs in assembly. He has done many interviews implying that we are corrupt and that we cannot manage our own affairs. He has said we benefit from the status quo, so he has to go over our heads to consult our members. In other words, he has done just about everything he can to show his contempt for our democratically elected leadership and cater to the most intolerant elements of our society by relying on the stereotypes and generalizations. Canadians and members of Parliament should be shocked and appalled by this conduct and these tactics. If one of us was saying these things about you, people would be up in arms, maybe even accusing us of hate crimes, but apparently, this kind of talk is okay so long as it's directed at Indians. Based on this, I don't think you have much to teach us about respect for democracy.

As for transparency, this government's development of Bill C-7 is built on a foundation of misleading statements, abuse of process, manipulations, and half-truths. As I have already mentioned, the only thing that amazes me is how you and your colleagues in the House don't seem to be bothered by this. It only adds to the impression that this government expects a much higher standard of conduct from us than it's prepared to show itself.

¿ (0940)

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, in conclusion, I am requesting that you recommend that Bill C-7 be withdrawn. It is too fatally flawed and the process by which it was developed is too contaminated for it to have legitimacy. Far from improving our lives and giving us the tools we need to become self-sufficient, this bill entrenches the powers of the Minister of Indian Affairs and allows him or her to continue to impose their will on our communities. The advice we have received from our legal counsel is that this bill is an unjustified infringement of our aboriginal rights. Our appearance before this committee should not be viewed as a justification for that infringement or a consultation. At the same time, I can promise you that if this bill is passed, we will be working with other first nations across this country to actively oppose it, politically and through other measures. The time has come for the federal government to stop imposing its will on our people, and if you proceed with this bill, future governments will inherit the conflict and the opposition this government has cultivated. Amendments will not solve the problem in this bill. It must be withdrawn.

I would like to remind you that as members of the legislature, you have a duty to be a check on the executive branch of government. That means you should act to promote and protect the democratic process and the honour of the Crown and not just act as a rubber stamp for the minister of the day. Unfortunately, with Bill C-6 we saw these principles set aside, as the Liberal members of this committee chose to follow the minister's instructions, despite the overwhelming opposition of the first nations themselves. Some people are saying this is what will happen again, that the LIberal members of this committee will act as agents of the minister and support this bill, despite the groundswell of first nations opposition, despite the sham consultations, and despite the fatal flaws of this bill itself. I, for one, hope you will have the integrity to do the right thing, and I call on you to recommend that Bill C-7 be withdrawn. There is a lot at stake, not just for the future of our communities, but for your own credibility and the legitimacy of Parliament itself. If you choose to let this bill proceed, you will have betrayed the very principles of democracy and honour Parliament is supposed to uphold. The choice is yours.

Meegwetch. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We will now go to the questions.

[Translation]

We will now go to questions.

[English]

Mr. Vellacott, seven minutes.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance): Thank you for being with us here today, Carol, on this.

My first question, and you referred to it in your comments, is on the consultation, or lack thereof. Lots of comments have been made around the country in respect of that. What in particular happened in this part of the country with an attempt at consultation, or was there anything that occurred at all? Were there letters from the minister inviting people to consultations? Was it a decision of the grand chief and others here to be a part of that or not be a part? What attempts were made?

¿ (0945)

Grand Chief Carol McBride: First of all, it was a phone-in line or whatever, which we felt was a very bad idea. How could you tell who was phoning, whether they were native, non-native, or whatever? That was the first thing, and we felt there was just no legitimacy to it.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: So there wasn't any attempt to set up face-to-face meetings, just a phone-in, a radio show kind of thing?

Grand Chief Carol McBride: It was a phone line the government, I guess, had set up. From what I understand, there was nothing that showed whether it was a native or a non-native who was phoning in. So we wouldn't really know that these were our grassroots people who were phoning in.

I'm also concerned about some of the things the minister has said, especially when we go into an all-chiefs meeting or a confederacy meeting. He has said many times, planting seeds in the Canadian people, we are corrupt and are not talking for the grassroots people. With this type of statement made by the minister who's supposed to represent us, how can we have faith in his consultation process, when he can just easily turn around and say we're a bunch of crooks and are not representing our people?

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: So did the minister at all attempt to have or did you on your own attempt to have some face-to-face meetings to inform your membership, to say, this is the nature of the bill, and this is why we, as leaders, are opposing it? Were you able to do some of that?

Grand Chief Carol McBride: Yes, we did. As a grand chief, I report to the chiefs, and they go to their respective communities. I have also sat on an implementation committee with the Assembly of First Nations and have brought our concerns to that table, to the all-chiefs meetings, confederacy meetings, places where we, as leaders, have a chance to talk and analyse aspects of the bill.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Do the general membership out there really have any understanding of the nature of this bill at all, your various bands and communities? Do they really have a clue what the bill is about?

Grand Chief Carol McBride: If we had had the right resources to do a proper consultation, what the minister at the beginning of this was concerned about, our people would have been properly informed and would not have left the responsibility to us to get out every aspect of the bill. We didn't have the resources. Today I'm here alone, I couldn't afford to bring our legal counsel, I couldn't afford to bring our technical people. So if you ask me a technical question today, I'm not going to be in a very good position, because this government or this minister did not provide the right resources.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: You made reference to one of the communities where they go by band custom and were never under the Indian Act. Would it be true of all of those you represent as grand chief that they are moving in the direction of a code in respect of all these areas that are covered in the bill, the administrative, the financial, the leadership selection, and so on? Would you say all the different first nations you represent have those covered off already, or are they in the process of working on written codes for those areas?

¿ (0950)

Grand Chief Carol McBride: Two of the communities never had their election process under the Indian Act, and they have their election process codified now. The Timiskaming First Nation, under the Indian Act, have their election procedures in place, so they--

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: What about the other areas, administrative and financial transparency, accountability? Did they also have those areas written-up, with procedures, manuals, and so on?

Grand Chief Carol McBride: The Timiskaming First Nation are in the process of policy development for accountability and transparency; we have been working on that for some time. The same goes for Wolf Lake and Barriere Lake; they are in the process of drafting their internal accountability policies.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: So your preference would be to stay working on that outside this particular bill. How long might it be until there are self-government agreements negotiated, as far as you can see down the road?

Grand Chief Carol McBride: I think the biggest thing we have to work on right now is to start negotiating and to make our communities a lot healthier. Maybe we should start negotiating on the resources and revenues taken off our territories.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Dromisky, seven minutes.

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

It's a very strong, emotional isuue, as you realize. The thing that bothers me about your whole presentation is that the overall perception is that you're painting us, the government, with the same kind of brush you're accusing us of painting you with, generalizing to such an extent that everything is wrong or everything is right, everybody is a crook or nobody is a crook. But we have a problem, and I think you can help. You're talking about the kind of thing the bill is really striving to bring about through the people in the first nations community.

You talk about democracy. You know and I know, and we've known for years, that on some first nations communities there's no such thing as democratic practices. We know there are other things that have to be corrected, but we can't correct them, the Indian Act doesn't allow us to correct them, and the first nations communities don't do anything to correct the practices that shouldn't be going on in other communities. What would you recommend? Surely you and your chiefs have talked about it. How can you help others? How can you help other citizens or first nations deal with a chief who never allows elections, never lets anybody know how much money comes in and where the money is going? They don't know how much money he's making or his council members are making. They don't know a lot of other things too. There's no democracy. If you raise any question, any concern, you're in trouble with the chief. You could even be kicked off the first nation reserve and be sent into a city to live. Your funds could be cut off. Your teenager will not receive any funds to go to the neighbouring high school or a community college or university. Those kinds of things exist. How can we help these people? What can government do to make it legal for democracy to thrive and to survive and to flourish? It's already on so many reserves with so many first nations people.

Grand Chief Carol McBride: I feel very insulted by some of the things you have mentioned. I have been a community leader of my own first nation, Timiskaming, for a good 17, 18 years, and I have never once engaged in any such activities in my community, if someone was against me or asked questions, taking it out personally--

¿ (0955)

The Chair: I will interject at this point. There was no intent to single anybody out.

Grand Chief Carol McBride: Well, I'm a leader, and he's talking about some leaders. I just want to clarify that.

The Chair: He's a member of Parliament doing a job for the country. He has heard testimony throughout the country, and he is not speaking of any specific first nations community, he's speaking of problems that are brought to members of Parliament in their offices by members of first nations. I'd like that clear, because I would not allow a member to attack a specific community.

Grand Chief Carol McBride: I have never seen such activities. In fact, we are striving to put our own policies in place, so that we are accountable to our people. I know for the Timiskaming First Nation there is no such thing as not convening for an election. Let me tell you, in our community over there, with an election in the middle of the year, people are preparing, and there would be no such thing as putting it off or whatever.

I believe, through proper consultation nation to nation, government to government, talks would have been a lot better. Right now, as a leader, I feel Bill C-7 is imposed. Why couldn't they come to the leadership and say, look, let's work at this together government to government, nation to nation? Give us the recognition we deserve. We have a lot of responsibilities in our communities. Our communities are in many areas in a state of poverty, and we have the responsibility to provide programs and services to our people on a very limited budget.

As I mentioned in my presentation, we have tried to get accountability of the Government of Canada, and we cannot get that information unless we spend thousands and thousands of dollars. Why doesn't the Government of Canada show an example in accountability? Why do they expect this from our first nations? I'm sure the majority of the first nations have policies in place. I'm sure, the way the people are across this nation, they would never allow their communities to be.... It almost sounds as if the leader or the chief is going to make their life impossible on reserves. I've never come across that, and maybe that's why it upset me so much to hear that.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Vellacott, three minutes.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: To follow up on my earlier comments, how far off are these self-government agreements? Is it difficult to get progress on that? I guess you are dealing with a provincial government and a federal one. Can you give me a guesstimate, and then describe why you think it's going to take that length of time? Will it be five years, 10 years, 20 years, 50 years, 100 years before there are these agreements in place?

Grand Chief Carol McBride: I think, before we can cement an agreement on self-government, we will have to make sure our communities have the right resources, and revenue and resources taken off our land will have to be negotiated, so that we can properly serve our people. What is holding back the Algonquin Nation from going ahead with the land issue is the policy that is in place at this moment, the comprehensive claim policy. As an ex-leader of my community and as a grand chief, I cannot recommend to my people negotiating under this policy, because at the end of the day, we have to extinguish our rights, and I cannot do that for the next generation. So I think that policy has to be taken out or looked at, and once the land issues are negotiated, I think we can talk about self-government.

À (1000)

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Okay. I notice you're staying away from giving me a direct answer on the number of years, and I respect that.

Grand Chief Carol McBride: I can't.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: It's difficult. It could be very quick, but it could be a long time as well.

Grand Chief Carol McBride: Depending on the government of the day and the policies we have to go by. Right now we don't believe in a comprehensive claim policy. I cannot recommend to my people that they go and negotiate under this policy. It's detrimental to them, and I can't do that.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: You're no worse off under the Indian Act, so you may as well stay there, with all the flaws and problems and difficulties, rather than go to Bill C-7? You've got nothing to lose by staying with the Indian Act until you get to something better.

Grand Chief Carol McBride: Well, let's just put it this way: we know the evils of the Indian Act. Bill C-7 is unknown, and I believe it is a lot worse than what we have right now. Please don't think I am an activist for the Indian Act--I would do away with it. I do hope we can sit down together and work on something to replace the Indian Act, not have it imposed on us. Let's do it nation to nation, government to government. Let's work together. That's what I'm saying.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

This is not a government, this is a committee of the House of Commons. We're not going to get nation to nation with this committee, and I think it would be an insult to you to consider this nation to nation. This is a committee of the House of Commons, it is not government, and we're talking about a bill that is flawed. I don't discourage you from working on a government-to-government approach, but it's not going to happen at this committee.

Mr. Hubbard, three minutes.

Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): Thanks, Mr. Chair, and good morning, Chief.

In your presentation you say you have most of the things that many of us see Bill C-7 doing. You spend most of your time talking about the fact that consultation is the major problem, and just a minute ago you mentioned to Mr. Vellacott that Bill C-7 is worse than the Indian Act of 1876. In what way do you see Bill C-7 as worse, what parts of it? What do you base your conclusions on?

Grand Chief Carol McBride: At the beginning of all this I remember the minister stating that this act would take away or reduce the powers of the government or the minister, and it doesn't. The minister has greater involvement, to me, than in Indian Act right now. I believe Bill C-7 has no right to deal with our governance. I think this should be left to the communities. Bill C-7 is gutting our leadership structure, whatever that is. Bill C-7 takes that away from us. There are communities that go by hereditary chiefs. This bill takes away things they've done all their lives, it takes away their traditions, their culture. There are many areas where I feel this bill could get us into problems. As I said earlier, I wish I could be more specific, but I didn't have the resources to bring my technical people here and I don't pretend to be a lawyer, I am a leader.

À (1005)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We have three minutes for closing remarks.

Grand Chief Carol McBride: Thank you.

Here today I'm asking this committee to take whatever you heard across this country, and I know it's an overwhelming amount of opposition to this bill, and really think of what you are about to do if you go ahead and give consent to go further with this. I hope you can speak to the principles of the bill and not go clause-by-clause, because then, to me, you're giving it recognition.

I have read a statement by a co-worker of mine, and it says “colonialism is hazardous to our health and fatal to our future”, and to me, this is what Bill C-7 is all about. That will be my closing remark, and I hope it stays with you and you do the right thing.

Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Before I invite our next guest, I'll explain the role of the committee. We don't have the opportunity not to do the clause-by-clause. The bill we have before us has been assigned to us by the Speaker of the House, and we must go clause by clause. We have to deal with each clause, and we will send it back to the House. The reason we travel the country is to ask people to help us send the bill back to the House in a better condition than it was in when it came to us. So in the testimony we have received throughout the country we benefit from the comments that are addressing Bill C-7. The other comments are interesting and they are good for history lessons, but they don't pertain to the bill.

[Translation]

I now invite the representative of the Algonquin Anishinabeg Nation Tribal Council to make his presentation.

[English]

Now I invite the Algonquin Anishinabeg Nation Tribal Council, Grand Chief Jimmy Hunter. Welcome, Grand Chief. We have 45 minutes together. We invite you to make your presentation, followed by questions.

Grand Chief Jimmy Hunter (Algonquin Anishinabeg Nation Tribal Council): [Witness speaks in his native language]

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

The Algonquin Anishinabeg Nation Council is based in Kitigan Zibi and represents first nations of Abitibiwinni, Eagle Village, Kitcisakik, Kitigan Zibi Anishinabeg, Lac Simon Anishinabe, Long Point First Nation, and Wahgoshig First Nation. These first nations are spread out over the Abitibi-Témiscamingue, Outaouais, and Ontario region. If one word had to describe the main characteristics of this Algonquin Nation, the word diversity would be appropriate. In fact, each of the communities has a striking, distinctive identity, as much in geography, resources, language, and population as in administrative, economic, and political structure. While sharing a common history, each of our communities has, with the passing years, adopted a distinctive way of life and reached a level of development peculiar to them. The demography of the Algonquin Anishinabeg Nation demonstrates that the total number of our population is over 6,000. Close to 42% of our population is under 25 years of age. This situation brings about new challenges for the community leaders, and we must find concrete means to ensure a promising future. The unilateral propositions recently tabled by the federal government, Minister Nault's governance act, do not bring about the changes our nation wants and needs. Only our nation can decide on the direction and the pace of changes to be introduced.

The Anishinabeg Algonquins have a very clear vision of the source and origins of our right to self-government. For us it is an inherent right, as the source of spiritual beliefs, language, culture, and links with the land. The right to self-government and the right to self-determination originate from the Creator. This vision is deeply entrenched in the culture, tradition, and governance of the Anishinabeg people. The federal government and the Canadian courts have also recognized and affirmed this vision and the inherent right of the first nations to self-government. Section 35 of the 1982 Constitution Act constitutes the clearest expression and assertion of this recognition.

We have expressed clearly the principles as far as the inherent right to self-government is concerned. These principles are based on two fundamental elements. First, the inherent right is bestowed by the Creator on the Anishinabeg people. Second, the inherent right to self-government is not dependent on the agreements, processes, or other government laws. Rather, it is based on a restructuring of powers, a rebuilding of our nation, access to our territory, and access to natural resources on our ancestral territory.

Recent Supreme Court of Canada rulings refer to good faith negotiation concerning all rights covered by subsection 35(1) of the 1982 Constitution Act. Consistent with such recognition is the capacity of the Anishinabeg to make our own laws. The royal proclamation of 1763, which constitutes a fundamental part of the Canadian Constitution and in this sense remains an integral part of the supreme law of Canada, already recognized the governments of our nation as a fundamental order of the government of this country.

À (1010)

The development of self-government of our nation must, first and foremost, comprise the solution of social problems, adequate educational and jurisdictional services, solutions to housing shortages, and restoration of the cultural and linguistic identity of our people. The creation of effective structures and institutions will be required to guarantee the fundamental values of the Algonquin Anishinabeg Nation. The First Nations Governance Act does not enable us to solve these huge problems that are rampant in our communities. The management of crises has become a permanent feature. Indeed, the system of a reserve was and remains an attempt at forced assimilation and eventual integration in the Canadian system. This governance act, which, once again, aims at an assimilation process, will only perpetuate the colonial context of our existence and the crisis in our communities.

In spite of the crisis situation , the system of reserve has not reached its objective of assimilation, thanks to a strong will to exist. However, it has caused intensive harm and wounds to our nation through collapse of our political systems and the loss of cultural and linguistic identity resulting from the social and economic problems we face today. We must put in place effective and full legitimate governments and institutions. In order to do so, the Anishinabe people must have the freedom, the time, the support, and the resources required to elaborate our own political and administrative institutions. Control by our nation of the process of elaboration of our constitution is much more important than the imposition of a one size fits all model of governance from the outside. How can we be accountable for structures and institutions that are imposed on us, rather than developed by us? The First Nations Governance Act imposes this one size fits all template on aboriginal communities across Canada. It fails utterly to accommodate diversity among different first nations across this country and diversity among different communities of the same nation.

The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples confirms and recommends that the internal structure and the authority status of the government and of its different identities should be defined in a constitution, a charter, laws, and oral agreements that reflect the nation's culture, standards, and social and traditional values. Our constitution as a nation will lead us to the establishment of basic governmental institutions, particularly the development of laws and courts adapted to our needs and values. It will also enable us to reflect the distinctiveness of each of the communities that makes up the Algonquin Anishinabeg nation. Then the Algonquin Anishinabeg will be in a position to manage their own schools, to maintain their social and sanitary services, to deal with family problems, to regulate many economic activities, to cultivate and protect their language, culture, and identity, to regulate the use of their land, waters, and natural resources, to deal with issues related to law-making powers and criminal procedures, and in general, to foster and maintain peace and security on their territory. Moreover, our constitution will allow us to look after issues linked to leadership selection and local elections.

À (1015)

The Anishinabeg Algonquins are a distinct society with a language, a history, and a common territory, and as such, they are recognized by international and the domestic laws as a nation with a self-government power, including the responsibility required by the new and impending challenges. What our nation needs is adequate and appropriate powers. Our Anishinabe government must take a prominent place in the Canadian Constitution, a standing that places us on an equal footing with the federal and provincial governments and is not dependent on foreign laws or courts emanating from a jurisdiction that is not our own. The effectiveness of our Anishinabeg government will depend on our capacity to deploy the necessary efforts to improve the quality of our legal status. In other words, the right to self-government of the Anishinabe people must be accepted as a fact.

The rebuilding of our nation is crucial. Our people must have an adequate collective wealth that is peculiar to them under the form of territories and natural resources. Our dependence on external funding sources and the political constraints that go with it must be minimized. The economic health and long-term viability of the Algonquin Anishinabeg Nation cannot be ensured through annual financial transfers and financing programs sponsored by the federal government. A redistribution of lands and resources is required to lead to real governance by our nation. That is the only path that can carry through our communities' health, viability, and stability.

In conclusion, self-determination and self-government are elements essential to the survival as a distinct people of the Algonquin Anishinabe. Let me make it very clear that we are not against accountability. However, we believe true accountability must take place within institutions and structures that are legitimate in the eyes of the people. Legitimate institutions and structures are those that are developed by the people of the community and respond to the particular needs of the community. They are not imposed on the community by another government. The rules of the First Nations Governance Act may have the goal of ensuring accountability, but they do so in an illegitimate manner, and therefore can never be endorsed by the people of our communities.

This governance act represents the following for the Anishinabeg nation: the delegation of a prescriptive form of self-government and a unilateral approach by the federal government to amending the Indian Act; a piecemeal approach to first nations self-government, an approach that is contradictory and detrimental to self-government and self-determination of the Algonquin Anishinabe; an approach to first nations governance that is disrespectful of the line of the authority of our elected political leaders; a process of domination, submission, exploitation, and control by the federal government that contributes to decreasing the relationship of trust between the Anishinabe people and the Crown; a perpetuation of colonialism and an unjust denial of our Algonquin Anishinabe right to jurisdiction as declared by the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples: “Colonialization forced aboriginal people to abandon traditional governance structures”.

À (1020)

Finally, to be specific, the Algonquin Anishinabeg Nation, having adopted resolutions 65 and 77, reiterates its total opposition to the First Nations Governance Act put forward by Canada.

Chi-meegwetch.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We will now proceed to questions by members.

[Translation]

I now invite the members of the committee to put their questions.

[English]

Mr. Vellacott, seven minutes.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Thank you very much, Grand Chief, for being with us today.

There is a point in the main body of your presentation where you talk about the rebuilding of the nation as crucial, and then you have some suggestions. I'm interested in a couple of statements you make there. You say, in relation to rebuilding and an adequate collective wealth resource, your “dependence on external funding sources and the political constraints that go with it must be minimized.” In the next paragraph you say “the economic health and long-term viability of the Algonquin Anishinabeg Nation cannot be ensured through annual financial transfers and financing programs sponsored by the federal government.” Are you indicating there that if there were adequate territory, land base, and resources, there would not be payments from the federal government any more? Am I understanding you correctly?

À (1025)

Grand Chief Jimmy Hunter: I think the fiduciary duty of the federal government is always there, but I guess what we're trying to say is that more recognition should be given that we own the title of this territory and the natural resources that go with it, but if we had some dollars coming from the resources that have been taken from this territory, that doesn't mean the government wouldn't have the fiduciary duty to continue to accommodate the first nations. Yet as long as we depend on government funding every year, sooner or later our backs will be against the wall as far as economic development is concerned.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: So are you saying, we want both, and we would rather be in a position where we can chart our own course and our own affairs more, have the resource base, and not be dependent on the other to that extent?

Grand Chief Jimmy Hunter: If I really told you what I wanted right now for my people, I don't think the government has enough money to compensate us. That would be my answer.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Okay. So you can't have the total aspiration there, but for the progress and health of your people through self-government and so on, you really are.... It was stated by a previous witness as well that the land and resource base is crucial to future economic development and success as a nation.

Grand Chief Jimmy Hunter: Yes.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Dromisky, seven minutes.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Thank you very much.

It's a fascinating paper. There's so much in it conceptually that I would love to sit with you for a few days and just discuss it line by line, concept by concept. However, we don't have that time. Basically, I have to agree with much of what you're saying as it pertains to specific first nations communities, but that, from my viewpoint, is what Bill C-7 is all about, allowing the individual first nations communities to develop their own codes. Sure, the bill specifies three distinct areas. Maybe the bill is attempting too much. it may be too much for any first nation community to handle in a short period of time, I really don't know. But there seems to be so much opposition to the point of the bill, which is, let the people decide themselves what the codes shall be, not having the same code for everybody in the whole country.

I have trouble trying to comprehend where the real big difference between us is regarding the development of codes. The bill says, you develop the codes, you're saying, we don't want to develop the codes, we reject the bill. What is this all about?

À (1030)

Grand Chief Jimmy Hunter: You just said it, your first comment about the time. You just mentioned to me that you'd like to sit down for a couple of days. That's exactly what's not happening with the government. They're not sitting down with the first nations people to really understand what they want. I think we would have to sit down, not just having government officials or the Indian Affairs minister come and just shake hands and all that. I think that's what the problem is. You said it yourself, we should sit down and look at this for two or three days. I think that's one of the problems we're having right now, finding out what the difference is between us and the government people. I think there's a big difference. We know our own people. I've been working for my people for the last 30 years, and I know them. I know how it is in the communities. The difference is that we know what kind of code or system we can put in place for our own people.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Okay. Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Dromisky, you say, if we would sit two or three days. We spent three months last spring, and this is the eighth week that we're sitting full days. So are you saying, if we could sit two or three days, we would be closer to agreeing and understanding, and after three months and another eight weeks there has been progress, but not very much, because we're not addressing the issue? Bill C-7 is what we're travelling the country to consult on, and that's not what we're talking about.

Mr. Vellacott, three minutes.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I like to learn what I can in respect of Bill C-7, the general background that frames the issue as well. I want to go back to the comments I made reference to before. I'm trying to get my head around this thing, because it's often in terms of nation to nation. I do know my history well enough to see that having repatriated the Constitution and so on from Britain, we don't get funds any more from Britain, and haven't actually for some time, and that's nation to nation. I understand the fiduciary obligation and the trust relationship, if you're saying they continue to be dependants, wards, and the Queen is the trustee, if you will. You need to help me on that. If the U.S. is giving us all kinds of money to fund our health and education and everything else, so we don't have a resource base, it's not equal footing, if you know what I'm saying. So I need to get my head around whether it is really first nations as full-blown nations, like U.S. to Canada, U.S. to Britain, Canada to Britain, and so on. Once you have the resource base, if there's still a continued flow of significant numbers of dollars in addition to that, does it not leave you in the position of a dependent nation--I guess that would be probably the best way you could put it at that point? That's why I'm wanting to explore this “nation to nation”. It's obviously not the same as Canada to the U.S., Canada to Britain, Canada to any other country, it's a continuing dependent relationship. Would I be correct in assuming that?

À (1035)

Grand Chief Jimmy Hunter: I don't know if I can really answer your question, but I guess what we are trying to say is that we are a distinct nation, Algonquin Anishinabeg, and that's the problem. I'm saying it's to be recognized as the Algonquin Nation, and the title and ownership of this land is not being seriously looked at. We have been around for many thousands of years on this land, and we are a nation, the Algonquin Anishinabeg Nation. Well, Algonquin is only the name given by Europeans, I guess. Really, we are Mamiwinnik Anishinabe. That's what we are, that's our nation.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Hubbard, three minutes.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Thanks, Mr. Chair, and good morning, Chief.

I'm probably off the topic too, but how far south does the Algonquin territory go?

Grand Chief Jimmy Hunter: I can go as far as you want me to go, but according to what I've seen myself recently, it goes down to Trois Rivières, down by Montreal, and both sides of the Ottawa River, and right up to Lac Abitibi. I don't have a map to really show you that.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: It's probably off the topic, but I'm sure the territory was as large as you say.

We have 9,000 people being considered here, we have 6,000 in the numbers you present. How many Algonquin first nations are there?

Grand Chief Jimmy Hunter: There are nine Algonquin communities in Quebec and at least three in Ontario, and that represents close to, I would say, 10,000 people.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: To go back to Corbiere and the idea of people both on reserve and off reserve being eligible to vote for chief and in band elections, is that happening now among the Algonquin people?

Grand Chief Jimmy Hunter: I only can speak for my own community, Long Point First Nation, and we always have people who are off reserve come and vote at our elections.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: You say most bands or first nations have their own codes in place already. The bill says, rather than the present system of having elections every two years, you could go four or five years between elections to give councils more opportunity to work over a period of time. Would that be a problem for you?

Grand Chief Jimmy Hunter: I don't want to answer that right now, because I think the community themselves can answer it. I'm at the regional level, and I believe other chiefs will be making a presentation after a while. I wouldn't be able to answer it right now.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Vellacott, four minutes.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: As I sit and talk with aboriginal and first nations friends, acquaintances, and so on, trying to be one who learns, something is evading me here, and I confess that maybe it's a matter of redefining things. It occurs to me that there is something unique and special about first nations, the long history, forms of governance, and so on. It's not quite the same, obviously, as a modern nation state, Denmark, Poland, or any of the countries across the world. They have their own military, their currency, their international trade policy, and all those kinds of things. They are not “dependent”--at least, they won't admit it--in respect of resources or revenue flow. They have their own resource base, some less, some limited. So that is different. That's what I'm trying to get some help on. Is “first nation” meant to be comparable to Poland or Denmark or Norway or Sweden or any of the countries elsewhere in the world? Are we talking currency, are we talking a military, international trade, all of those things, and a resource base such that there is not a dependence on dollars from another government, the Canadian government?

À (1040)

Grand Chief Jimmy Hunter: I cannot compare the Algonquin nation to other first nations in other countries. However, I think I made it clear a while ago. It's very easy to understand that if we were recognized as managing, co-managing, whatever you want to call it, these resources, we would be able to organize ourselves in the communities better. We would not necessarily have a military, but we would have our own institutions, as I mentioned.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: When you talk about all the way down in Quebec and so on, is there an overlap, competing claims, if you will, with other first nations groups?

Grand Chief Jimmy Hunter: There are overlaps, but these are the situations we will be handling with other first nations.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Somehow that would be worked out.

Okay. Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Dromisky, four minutes.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Do any of the Algonquin first nation communities you referred to have some kind of economic development, some kind of industry, some kind of enterprise going on their property, under their complete control or in partnership with somebody else, like a company or a lumbering firm or a mining firm?

Grand Chief Jimmy Hunter: I'm not aware of any big manufacturers in any Algonquin community, but I'm sure there must be agreements with forestry companies or small contractors. Still, that's not enough to sustain the economic situation of our community. There's got to be more to it than just signing small agreements, as far as I'm concerned.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Are there sawmills or anything like that?

Grand Chief Jimmy Hunter: Not that I'm aware of. There are small enterprises in each community, grocery stores, things like that. I don't know any of big operations.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Okay. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

That completes the questioning.

[Translation]

At this time, you make make your closing remarks.

[English]

We now invite you to make closing comments.

Grand Chief Jimmy Hunter: I hope the message we're trying to give to the federal government will be heard loud and clear for the Algonquin people. As I said, we live in a territory with a lot of third-party interests. Algonquin people never gave up their land and never went to war with anyone for this territory. We belong to this land. It is very important for us that this be recognized. I'm not speaking here only for myself and today, I'm talking about the future of our children, our grandchildren. We hope this government starts to realize that we have to take over our own destiny. That's the only way I can put it.

À (1045)

The Chair: Merci beaucoup. Thank you very much.

Grand Chief Jimmy Hunter: Meegwetch.

The Chair: Meegwetch.

[Translation]

I now call upon the Chief of the Long Point First Nation.

[English]

I now invite the Long Point First Nation, Chief Steeve Mathias. Welcome, Chief Mathias. We have 30 minutes together.

[Translation]

Do you prefer to speak French or English?

[English]

Chief Steeve Mathias (Long Point First Nation): In English.

The Chair: We invite you to make your presentation, hoping you will allow some time for questions.

Chief Steeve Mathias: Thank you.

Kwe. Bonjour. Good morning, everyone.

I would like to take this opportunity to welcome the House of Commons Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development, and Natural Resources to Algonquin territory. I would also like to thank the standing committee for providing me with an opportunity to speak on behalf of my community on Bill C-7, the First Nations Governance Act. As chief of the Long Point First Nation, I officially extended an invitation to hold this hearing in my community, but for some reason, my invitation was rejected. I strongly believe it would have been more appropriate to hold these hearings in first nation communities. It would have provided the standing committee with a chance to hear what our people have to say about Bill C-7 and an opportunity to better understand the social, economic, and political realities of our community. Therefore, I reiterate my invitation to you and remain convinced that it would be beneficial for you to come to our community before submitting and finalizing your report.

To give you a little background about my community, I would like to provide you with an indication of where we are situated. Long Point First Nation is located in Winneway, approximately 160 kilometres southwest of Val-d'Or, and it is accessible from here by a dirt road that was built mainly for logging purposes. Winneway is a 91-acre settlement created approximately 60 years ago. While the total membership is nearly 700, there are 80 homes to house the 350 people who live in the community. Our ancestors were obliged to relocate on two separate occasions. Our original community of Long Point was situated on Lac des Quinzes, which is part of the Ottawa River, an area where our ancestors had freely enjoyed the traditional way of life for thousands of years. In the early 20th century the construction of a dam and the devastation of flooding forced us to relocate. Our ancestors then moved to Sand Point, a few kilometres upstream of Long Point. Finally, because the government had promised our ancestors road access if they moved to another location, our ancestors once again found themselves moving to our present location, which is now Winneway. At the time our ancestors had the same vision we still hold dear to our hearts, to build a strong community and a promising future for our children. Today we are still striving and struggling to achieve this vision.

The minister claims that Bill C-7 will improve the quality of life of our members at the community level. We feel and sincerely believe the bill is denying us our aboriginal right to govern ourselves. This bill will not build a new house or deal with community infrastructure, it will not improve our social conditions or deal with issues such as poverty in our community, it will not create any new jobs for our people. It is our opinion that the reason this bill was unilaterally introduced was to deal with federal government motives with regard to alleged bad management of band councils.

À (1050)

For your information, our community has been asked by INAC to implement a remedial action plan. The reason for this remedial plan is to eliminate our community deficit, which was incurred mainly due to the implementation of two major community development projects meant to reduce our dependence on the federal government. Although we had saved the federal government hundreds of thousands of dollars under the social assistance program, our effort went unrecognized by INAC. Since the demand for a remedial plan and because of the attitude of INAC, we have concluded that our fiscal relationship with the federal government continues to be very problematic.

Restrictions in our funding agreement with the federal government did nothing to help us to reduce our debt. The current type of funding agreement with the federal government is limited and does not provide much, if any, flexibility to manage and administer properly our essential programs and services. We have submitted two remedial action plans to the regional office since INAC requested corrective measures, and in both instances INAC have not approved our plan. Despite this, we have taken it upon ourselves to deal with our situation. We are proud to inform you that over a two-year period we have managed to substantially eliminate most of our debt.

In regard to self-government, the Long Point First Nation council has officially adopted the first nation plan entitled “First Nations Governance from a First Nations Perspective” at a duly convened council meeting, and this was ratified through a general assembly. The first nation plan is our framework to deal with the issues of self-government and self-determination.

Long Point also fully supports the arguments raised in the presentations made by the Algonquin Anishinabeg nation and the Algonquin Nation Secretariat. We believe our communities should not be held solely accountable for a governing regime that did not have our input and is not reflective of our community's realities, but rather reflects another government's interests. We feel the governance act is a question of whether first nations are meeting the expectations of the federal government, not the expectations of our grassroot people.

It is obvious, with the signing of our annual funding agreements, that we will be unable to meet the needs of our people. There is no negotiation process to address our needs, yet these agreements hold us accountable to provide quality service and deal with our social, economic, and cultural issues. Furthermore, these funding agreements are sent to us at the very last minute, and it is explained that if we don't sign the agreement immediately, no funding will be decentralized to maintain the delivery and operation of our essential programs and services. Thus, each year we have no alternative but to sign the agreements under duress in order to avoid interruption of our essential services.

I wish to conclude by saying we totally disagree with the minister's claims that Bill C-7 will improve the quality of life for our members at the community level. It is definitely not by amending the Indian Act or the introduction of a new bill like Bill C-7 that fundamental changes will occur. We believe only through a negotiating process will we find short- and long-term solutions to deal with the issues we face daily in our communities. Our alternative is to deal with various streams of necessary change, such as nation rebuilding, redistribution of land and resources, a new fiscal relationship, and negotiation and implementation of a treaty for our nation. We sincerely believe strengthening first nations governance must be a first nation-initiated process. Our present alternative is the first nation plan. Because of the diversity of first nations and the one size fits all approach to governance, Bill C-7 will only create inefficiencies and deficiencies and more frustration, conflicts, and confrontation for everyone concerned.

À (1055)

Finally, we demand that the standing committee recommend to the federal government withdrawal of Bill C-7 in its entirety. Only when our inherent right to self-determination and self-government is recognized and supported through activities aimed at capacity building, institutional changes, and our participation in the Canadian economy will we be in harmony with the mainstream Canadian economy.

Thank you. Meegwetch.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Five minutes, Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Thank you for being with us, Chief.

You make reference to the first nation plan, the framework to deal with the issues of self-government and self-determination. Do I understand that the first nation plan deals with leadership selection, financial management, accountability, and the administration of government, or is it a more generic self-determination and self-government discussion? Does it talk about codes in a kind of manual for all those areas?

Chief Steeve Mathias: It doesn't get to the specifics, it's very general, more of a template. I don't believe the first nation plan prepared by the Assembly of First Nations gets into the specifics of what you are raising. But in regard to our community, we always had our elections until 1998 through an unwritten policy, we did it through our customs. Since 1998 we've had a written election code, and our experience is that it's complicating things a lot. This is something we're not accustomed to, and it is giving us a lot of difficulty. We never had an appeal before we had a written election code, and we have one appeal now in regard to our election.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: So that's something you took the initiative in developing as a first nation?

Chief Steeve Mathias: Yes, we did it among ourselves, and the assembly and people got to take part in it. We don't have full elections in our community. Half of the council goes into elections.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Only half are elected each time, you're saying?

Á (1100)

Chief Steeve Mathias: Exactly. It's to have some stability, I guess, and continuity.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Because of the complication with the written code and the appeal process, are you saying you would prefer to stay with an oral code, as written codes are messy and complicating and create more stress for people?

Chief Steeve Mathias: That is something I'm still debating in my mind right now. I've seen the Harvard study, and they made reference to communities down in the United States that are doing really well with the overall development of their communities, and some of them don't even have an election code, don't even have elections, and things are going well. I read that and I see what's happening in my community. Now we're starting to have appeals, because people are taking the document and trying to find anything they can to contest the election. That is creating some problems for us.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Yes, that is a bit of a dilemma. I take it that with an oral tradition of things, there were appeal processes, but that it's true that in a society where more people read and write, with the greater literacy, often it appears.... I've heard from the grassroots that they want written codes, but there is that quandary. People will sometimes read the minutiae; they don't accept the result of the election and they want to push it to an appeal. But would this particular appeal you are talking about be a justified appeal based on people having spelled out more clearly and knowing their rights, because there is a written code?

Chief Steeve Mathias: We've tried, for the benefit of future generations, to document our customs, and we're trying to incorporate those traditional values. I'll just give you an example. On the day of the elections, when it's time to count the ballots, we invite the whole community, so the ballots are counted in front of everybody. We always did it that way. That's why I think we never had any election contested in the past. Now it is the more technical aspects of our code that will be the basis of appeals, where people are questioning or contesting certain elements of our code. That's what I'm referring to as creating some problems for us.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Do you understand French? If you don't, you will need the translation device for Monsieur Loubier.

[Translation]

Chief Steeve Mathias: It's as you prefer. I understand French.

The Chair: You have five minutes, Mr. Loubier.

Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Welcome, Chief Mathias. I greatly enjoyed your presentation and I would especially like to congratulate you on succeeding as an administrator in substantially lowering your debt, to the point of almost eliminating it entirely. You have managed this feat in spite of the Department of Indian Affairs.

Too often since the start of this consultative process on Bill C-7, we have heard all kinds of horror stories about the mismanagement of First Nations. The reality of the situation is somewhat different. In most communities, there are a number of good managers who could teach the federal government a thing or two, given the $530 billion debt load it is carrying. Even the AG has pinpointed a number of instances where funds were mismanaged. The problem was not aboriginal communities, but the Department of Indian Affairs with its many yearly requests for forms which ultimately end up unread in the wastebasket. Therefore, I congratulate you on your initiative.

Secondly, I'd like to know if the minister consulted with you before drafting Bill C-7. The recurring theme since the start of these cross-country consultations is the failure on the government's part to hold genuine talks. Yet, Robert Nault persists in telling us that a broad-based consultative process has been undertaken and that this bill reflects the aspirations of Canada's first nations.

Chief Steeve Mathias: First of all, thank you for your praise of my community's accomplishments.

As for the minister, personally, I have actively participated in provincial-level meetings with the APNQL, the Quebec-Labrador Assembly of First Nations, and with Mr. Ghislain Picard. At the national level, I'm also work with the Assembly of First Nations and with Matthew Coon Come. I must admit that over the past three years, we have invited the minister to attend our meetings, but our invitation has been turned down, for reasons still unbeknownst to us. I don't know why he hasn't wanted to meet with us. I find it truly deplorable.

Earlier, I listened to the Grand Chief and to committee members talk about the importance of keeping the lines of communication open. It's important to engage in a dialogue, but in order to do so, we need to get together, sit down and talk and that's not happening.

We asked the minister to come to our community during the round of consultations because we're the ones who will be affected by this legislation, but our request went unanswered. We're always told either to come to Val-d'Or,to Ville-Marie or to Rouyn-Noranda. We are forced to travel to these communities, even though we may not always have the means and resources to do so. It's unfortunate, and maybe even unhealthy. There are limits. We have to find some way to communicate because people in this region have had enough. They say things need to change and to change for the better, not for the worse.

As far as the bill and the consultations are concerned, we're not given the proper resources and no effort is made to come and hold meetings in our communities.

Á (1105)

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Earlier, you stated that Bill C-7 fails to address the real problems facing aboriginal communities in Quebec and in Canada.

What would you say are the problems or challenges facing your community? If we were to prioritize them today, how would the list read?

Chief Steeve Mathias: As I see it, my community and first nations in general must regain some control over their own destiny, and this is not happening with the Indian Act, nor will it happen with the minister's proposed legislation.

We are indeed facing some formidable, albeit wonderful, challenges. I've taken the time to come here, and I've brought with me resolutions drafted by certain municipalities that support and admire our efforts and vision. We have given some thought not only to how we occupy the land, but also to how we can share the wealth of the land.

I've made the trip here with one of my elders. We travelled down a forest road to a paved road into Malartic. The distance from here to Malartic is approximately 15 miles, no more than 20 miles. The elder said to me: “Look on either side of the highway, Steeve, and tell me what you see”. I saw a number of signs advertising homes for sale or for rent, and every house had a garage. Everywhere, there were vehicles parked in yards.

This is not so with my people. They have nowhere to live. They live in poverty. That's why we say that the wealth is not being shared, and I believe that is what our community wants. We want to live on the same land as others and share the wealth. That is the kind of relationship we envision with Canadian society.

Á (1110)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

[English]

Mr. Hubbard, five minutes.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good morning, Chief.

Bill C-7 talks about elections, and most first nations now have elections every two years. With the codes you may write up, it could be four or five years between elections, to give more opportunity for plans and for a vision for your first nations peoples. What would be your recommendations on staying with the two-year system or going for four or five years for elections?

Chief Steeve Mathias: As I'd mentioned earlier, we revised our election procedures in 1998, and we decided that a three-year mandate would be the most appropriate thing for us at this time. We had two years before, but we felt it wasn't long enough for someone to get into office and familiarize themselves with all the issues. By the time the person did that, the term would be over. So we figured that there should be a minimum of three years. It's too early to really say what's in our best interest; we've only had two elections under these terms.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: I assume you're starting a new year on April 1, and you say suddenly, I suppose about a week ago, according to what you say, someone told you how much your resources would be from DIAND. That's not good, if that's a fact. But Bill C-7 talks about trying to make sure all the people within the first nations are aware of the moneys that come and how they're accounted for. You say meetings are held in your first nations. To look at all your sources of revenue, I assume the Province of Quebec is also giving you a annual amount for being displaced. You have a budget of so many dollars. Are all your people aware of how the money is allocated? Is there an annual report to your community?

Chief Steeve Mathias: We do produce a financial statement each year. In recent years we've also prepared interim financial statements, and these documents were available to the community; they were distributed at the community general assembly. We want to do more of this, to be more transparent, to share the information with our members. I referred to our remedial plan in my presentation. We hired an accounting firm from outside the region; we went to Quebec City, and we wanted to deal with experienced qualified accountants. Those people came into my community, they carried out their mandate, and they couldn't believe the complexity of the way we have to deal with those funding agreements. It's unbelievable the reporting requirements that are in there. They also realized that the computerized system within our office is not adequate to manage the funding agreements we have to manage and administer. These people even told the people from INAC. INAC asked for quarterly reports, and the comment of the senior accountant was that it's impossible--don't even expect to get it every six months, because they cannot produce it. We don't have the proper software and hardware to produce the type of report that is required.

Á (1115)

The Chair: There is one minute left, and I give it to Chief Mathias for closing remarks.

Chief Steeve Mathias: I'd like to share with you a little more about the feeling of my community. As I explained in the presentation, to take a community and relocate them left and right like that without compensation, without any transitional arrangements to see that things would be done smoothly is totally unacceptable. That's what we had to go through, and we're still suffering from the impact of that. It's very sad that we still have to work under these conditions today. I don't know, if things don't change, what it's going to lead to, because I and my people are sick and tired and fed up. They're ready for confrontation, if that's what it takes. We've managed to keep things under control these last few years, but I don't know how much longer we can, because it's getting exhausting, very time-consuming. In the last few years every time we end up informing people, it turns out to be a crisis. We live with that in the region. The MPs from this region know about all of that. I think you should take the time to meet the MPs.

That's what I would conclude on. Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

[Translation]

I now invite the Eagle Village First Nation - Kipawa to address the committee.

[English]

I now invite Eagle Village First Nation, Kipawa, Chief Lance Haymond. Welcome, Chief Haymond. We have 15 minutes together. We invite you to make a presentation, which will be followed by questions if you allow time.

Chief Lance Haymond (Eagle Village First Nation - Kipawa): Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the standing committee.

I too would like to thank you for the opportunity to speak to you in regard to Bill C-7.

I would like to begin my presentation by telling you a little about the community I represent, Eagle Village First Nation. We are a small Algonquin community of approximately 690 persons, of whom 460, approximately 65%, live off reserve. The total size of our community is 23 hectares, and our entire community is surrounded by the municipal territory of Kipawa. We have long been removed from the heart of our traditional territory by the rapid development of resource-based industries that has ravaged our land and by the creation of Indian reserves. These two realities have left us regulated to be dependent on a government that has ignored and continues to ignore the real issues confronting us, all the while proposing legislation like Bill C-7, which will not necessarily improve our realities. This tactic only serves to distract us from addressing and finding solutions to the real problems encountered in our communities and nation.

I will speak to you today not necessarily about Bill C-7, as we, along with many first nations, have already rejected the approach outlined in Bill C-7. This is supported by the resolutions we have taken with other members of the Algonquin Anishinabe Nation. Instead, I would like to outline many of the real issues confronting my community and nation and an approach that would actually bring about change and contribute to the future development of our nation.

I am here today as the duly elected leader of my community. All members, on and off reserve, have a say or a vote in the selection of leadership in my community, and they will continue to do so in the future. I am entrusted with bringing forward the issues that are affecting my community, fellow communities, and nation as we try to find solutions that will allow us to improve the quality of life of our members, while trying to develop and plan for the day we become a self-governing nation. It is a difficult challenge without proper resources, tools, and flexibility, trying to do it all within the restrictive parameters of the Indian Act.

We do not pretend to have all of the answers to the issues we face, but I am convinced that Bill C-7 will not lead to any significant improvements as far as the Algonquin Nation and the members of my community are concerned. We must develop collaborative approaches to find real and concrete solutions to the social issues that are rampant in our nation, rather than having the federal government unilaterally decide what we need as native people.

We firmly believe we, the nation, have unextinguished aboriginal rights and title to our ancestral land and possess the inherent right to self-government, as confirmed by the Constitution. The challenge laid before us is how to develop and assert this right when we are continually confronted by a government agenda set to table legislation that doesn't meet our realities, does not engage in proper consultation processes, unilaterally decides what is in our best interests, and continues to perpetuate to the Canadian public that we need to be more accountable and transparent, while distracting us from the real issues and the possibility of finding real solutions to the issues affecting our communities.

To be a self-governing nation we must first find real and tangible solutions to the social ills of our people. We will require tools to address the major issues confronting us, chronic underfunding of our programs and inflexible and unrealistic policies that force us as leaders to make hard decisions affecting our people. We must make improvements and address the following areas as we strive to develop our own entities for the nation.

We will require appropriate educational services, including post-secondary and special education, and health and social services to combat the alarming rates of social problems we are confronted with on a daily basis. We need a serious investment in areas such as housing and infrastructure, to meet not only the needs of today, but those of the future, to ensure that our young populations have proper shelters and conditions in which to raise their families.

Á (1120)

Another key area requiring attention is human resource development and training. This area in particular should be addressed as critical. You expect us to be accountable to all of our members, yet we are not properly resourced to meet the needs expressed by our off-reserve members. We bear the brunt of criticism from these members for our lack of ability to service them, when the real root of the problem is the reluctance of government to adequately resource communities to meet those needs. Government should assist and enable us to develop our own appropriate entities, policies, and criteria that take into consideration our particularities as communities and as a nation, rather than trying to have us fit into a predetermined model.

There are two issues remaining, and we believe they are vital for the future development of our nation. We require access to our territories and access to the revenues generated by the extraction and transformation of our natural resources. This would enable us to support and develop our own vision for the future, all the while becoming less dependent on government dollars, programs, and policies that do not meet our needs on our road to self-reliance and self-government.

As you are aware, we are faced with many issues on a daily basis and we, as leaders, are expected to find solutions. We cannot do it alone, but at the same time, we do not want the federal government deciding by itself what is in our best interests, as they have done with Bill C-7 and other legislation that has already been tabled. We have the capacity and will to effect positive change for our communities, provided we are truly part of a process. We must be consulted and provided with proper resources if the government is truly interested in assisting us. As I have already stated, we do not have all the answers, but I am convinced that by developing a true partnership and working collaboratively, we can establish tools and mechanisms that will allow us to address the ills and shortcomings we experience today, while continually striving to diminish the dependence and constraints imposed on us by the government, with the hope that there will be improvements for our future generation.

In conclusion, we reject the First Nations Governance Act not because we are against accountability and transparency, for we have adopted local policies in this matter, but for the simple reason that Bill C-7 will not result in any improvements in the realities my members and nation face. I say, if the federal government is serious about improving first nation realities and recognizing our existing rights, we must work together to articulate the issues we have identified. We should develop and collaborate in a work plan to create viable solutions for the future. We cannot continue to work in isolation. This has been the norm for far too long. We must truly look outside the box to find potential solutions. Doing it unilaterally is not the way.

There are many excellent reports already available, and recommendations contained therein should be seriously looked at for implementation. I'm thinking in particular of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples and the recommendations that resulted from this process. As you are aware, we do not need to reinvent the wheel, we must only agree to commit time, energy, and resources, which could truly lead to positive outcomes for us all.

Á (1125)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Vellacott, five minutes.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Thank you.

Chief--

The Chair: Excuse me, Mr. Vellacott, before we go on, if anyone wishes to address the committee in French, we are equipped for that, and we want everyone to feel comfortable doing that.

[Translation]

Please feel free to address the committee in French, if you prefer.

[English]

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Mr. Chair, often at these hearings you remind people of the opportunity for spontaneous presentations.

The Chair: I will do this before I turn the clock on. I have three already.

If there is anyone in the room wishing to make a spontaneous presentation of two minutes at the end, you need only register at the table, and we will accommodate you.

[Translation]

If anyone would like to make a two-minute presentation at the conclusion of the scheduled presentations, they can register at the table by the entrance. I'm referring to anyone who would like to speak and whose name is not on the list of witnesses scheduled to make a presentation later.

[English]

This is only for persons who have not presented and who are not scheduled to present.

Now I will turn on the clock.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Thank you.

Thank you, Chief Haymond, for being here.

Do you perceive Bill C-7 as more of an irritation, a distraction from some of the other priorities and concerns you have, or is it more negative than that? You, as a leader of your people, have highlighted, I think appropriately, some of the big issues you face and the concerns, the priorities. So is Bill C-7 more a thing along the way that's going to derail and take energy away from these other more pressing things, or is it something you can work with, and then get back to this other agenda?

Chief Lance Haymond: It's just the fact that we don't need the federal government to legislate accountability, transparency, the development of policies, and related issues. As I mentioned in my presentation, we started this process in 1999. We do have a complete management and administrative policy that was developed and approved by the population. We are in the process now of developing our own electoral process; I believe we are one of two Algonquin communities that still elect under the Indian Act. So we're already on the road to developing these policies. They are community-driven. We do a lot of consultation. The ratification process for major issues, such as development of an electoral code, means approval by the total population through referenda. If we spend all our time focusing only on those areas, it will distract us from the real issues of the day. It may not have been stated clearly, but we have already begun to develop those processes, as many of the Algonquin communities have, not out of the need for government to have us more accountable, but through the wishes and demands of our own population.

Á (1130)

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: So if you were to take Bill C-7, as you've probably done, and place it alongside what you have already done in covering those various areas, could you say, oh, this is what we have already done, and just shoehorn it in as satisfying the requirements of Bill C-7? You could just slip it in there, it's already taken care of, and you needn't spend a lot of time, because you're already there.

Chief Lance Haymond: Yes, but that only speaks to my community's reality, not necessarily to the reality of the nation as a whole. It would jeopardize, I think, our ability as a nation to proceed, and for me, that would be a recognition that what the government is proposing in Bill C-7 is legitimate. As I mentioned previously, we reject it for the very reason that the process in developing Bill C-7 basically left us on the outside looking in.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Am I to gather from the comment you made, then, that there are certain other first nation communities that have not progressed to the point you have in the development of leadership selection codes, financial management, accountability, and administration? Is that what I understood you to say?

Chief Lance Haymond: That's probably true, but I believe what we have is some indication of where we want to go. There are continually works in progress, and there is such a diversity within our own nation that we all can't be at the same place at the same time. Our geographical location and community realities put us in that situation. So to say other communities are not at the same level I don't think is fair, because the diversity within our nation is so great that you'd be basically comparing apples to oranges. Each community is starting to take the necessary steps, but we are not all at the same level, for sure.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Is this bill nudging certain other communities to move in those directions, to get those issues dealt with?

Chief Lance Haymond: Not necessarily. I think these issues were already being looked at prior to the tabling of Bill C-7. Each community was doing work with respect to its own particular realities.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Hubbard, five minutes.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Thank you and good morning, Chief.

I'm really appalled here: 230 people, 23 hectares of land. Do you have other resources that the province or somebody has for you outside the 23 hectares?

Chief Lance Haymond: No, we do not. We have 23 hectares for the 275 people who actually live on reserve--I have not included the 45 non-aboriginals who reside in my community, I'm only speaking about our members. In addition, we have an backlog of 80 families who want to move back to the community, but cannot do so because of the lack of available land base. We have gone through the reserve enlargement process Indian Affairs has, and we should reach some conclusion, I hope, within this fiscal year, but it's taken us nine years from the date we initially made the request, and we still have no indication that our reserve will expand to meet our future needs.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: When was it established? Is it an old reserve or a new one?

Chief Lance Haymond: The community was developed in 1973 after the last remaining members of our community were brought from Hunter's Point, which is a part of our traditional territory. They were relocated to the reserve, and the reserve itself only has 23 hectares, but in those days our population was probably a little over 100. With the advent of Bill C-31, our population increased by 100%. All the programs, services, and policies the department has were not able to take into consideration the rapid growth of our communities, and from every indication I have, they will not be able to meet those needs in the future either.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: With the Corbiere decision and people on reserve and off reserve voting, when it comes to maintaining the membership of your people, how far away are they? Are they near or are they all across the country?

Chief Lance Haymond: They are in every single province. In 2001 we had a Corbiere-compliant election process. Our members reside in and around neighbouring municipalities in other provinces, and we have those who live as far away as the United States and Hawaii, and these members have exercised their right to participate in our electoral processes.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: If we had a chief and council established under Bill C-7 and if some of the members of the council lived off reserve, would this be workable?

Chief Lance Haymond: For sure. I think that's a very fair approach, and as I have mentioned, we have already developed a draft electoral code. We were not able to have it ratified in time for our upcoming election in June, because Indian Affairs insists on having a copy to make sure it's Corbiere-compliant and does not infringe the Canadian Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. To be able to proceed with the ratification of our own electoral code, we are still subject to having it approved by the Department of Indian Affairs at the regional level. We have done a lot of our own work, and it's based on the direction given by the community. The document is developed in a manner that outlines a wide range of options, including terms of office, representation for off-reserve members, that are currently not allowable to us under the Indian Act. As 65% of our population resides outside the reserve, I think it's very appropriate and crucial that representation for those members be made within our existing council.

Á (1135)

Mr. Charles Hubbard: What part of your budget overall, education, health, social assistance, is the most difficult to manage with the amount of money that is coming to your reserve?

Chief Lance Haymond: As I mentioned previously, our band membership doubled with the application of Bill C-31, but at the same instant the minister froze band support funding levels for communities such as mine, so we are currently at early 1990 funding levels, without being able to really administer and deliver programs that are necessary for our communities. So education, health and social services, band support funding, all those program areas have not been funded to the level that is required, because all of our realities have not been taken into consideration.

The Chair: Monsieur Loubier.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: I have a brief question, Mr. Chairman.

Chief Haymond, you mentioned earlier that your community was relocated in 1973. Can you tell me why your community was relocated? It seems that over the past 60 years, it has become rather routine to relocate communities for various reasons. Most of the time, they are relocated for economic reasons, although the communities do not benefit from the move.

[English]

Chief Lance Haymond: That is precisely part of the problem. I guess our members prior to 1973 were recognized as a band, but we were basically a landless band. We lived and resided and tried to remain within the traditional territory, but with the advent of, in particular, the forest industry, the previous leader saw fit to create a reserve. He chose to locate it in Kipawa, and from that time on that is where the majority of our members have moved to. So there were basically two reasons, the economic one and the fact that they could no longer maintain the traditional lifestyle because of rapid exploitation of resource-based industries in our territories.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Therefore, your community was relocated to satisfy the demands of forestry companies who made money off your ancestral lands. You were relocated a second time because of the excessive logging operations of forestry companies who alone stood to profit. You didn't benefit in any way. Your community was relocated because you no longer had land on which to carry out hunting, fishing or trapping activities. Every time aboriginal communities are relocated, the primary reason seems to be the economic needs of others. Your community never comes out on the winning side. This has become clear to me since the committee began this round of meetings.

Á (1140)

[English]

Chief Lance Haymond: Yes, there is some benefit, but it's minimal. I think there's a lot of room for improvement, and until we can establish the appropriate processes, we will not benefit fully from the development and the exploitation that has been going on for many years.

The Chair: Before I go to Mr. Dromisky, do you still have claim to the location you were displaced from?

Chief Lance Haymond: Yes.

The Chair: And is that included in the 23 hectares, or is it in addition?

Chief Lance Haymond: It is in addition.

The Chair: How large is it?

Chief Lance Haymond: It would constitute a part of the Algonquin nation. I don't think we can speak directly of individual territory, because we all utilize the territory, and the grand chief has given you some indication of the size of that territory.

The Chair: But there could be challenges in court whereby you would regain much of that territory?

Chief Lance Haymond: I don't believe court is necessarily the appropriate mechanism, but true, open discussion, dialogue, and negotiation, but as the previous grand chief has mentioned, not under the existing comprehensive claim policy. I'm of the same opinion, we cannot afford to get into a process where we will have to mortgage our future generations and at the end of the process know we are going to be extinguishing our aboriginal rights. That's why I am saying we need to look outside the box. I think we are open to this, and litigation is not necessarily the best approach.

The Chair: But you do have claim to more land than the 23 hectares aforementioned.

Chief Lance Haymond: I believe so.

The Chair: Okay. That's what I wanted to clear up.

Mr. Dromisky.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: It's quite apparent from everything we've heard in the past few weeks that the top priority is the settling of land claims and all the spin-offs related to that. In other words, Bill C-7 is not a top priority in the minds of anybody. What is really important is to get at all these major problems you people have been dealing with for years and years. How many of the first nations communities within your area are dealing right now with a specific land claim or any kind of negotiation with the Department of Indian Affairs to settle some particular claim?

Chief Lance Haymond: I believe there is at present no one moving forward with any type of land claim. We have just gone through a process with the federal government scoping out how we could eventually come to an agreement, but it was done within the confines of our own tribal council, and a lot of communities are still doing historical research, as I am, to support claims that we have unextinguished aboriginal rights and title to our ancestral territories. So there is a combination of factors, but at the present time there is really nobody in negotiations. We are in preparation, making sure all our facts are totally supported, because of the existing policy the federal government uses for the settling of claims, land claims in particular.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: I am going to go in a different direction now. Let's assume, hypothetically, that with all the amendments and everything else, the Speaker of the House of Commons decides to put Bill C-7 forward and it goes through. Is there any possibility that the bill itself could be put in a position where it is acceptable or non-acceptable to individual first nation communities? In other words, they can use it if they want it, but they don't have to use it if they don't want it, because they have already got most of what the bill is talking about. We have heard from a multitude the kind of progress that is being made with transparency, handing of funds, elections, and so forth, from coast to coast. Do you see it as possible to have an opening for the different first nations to accept or reject on the basis that they already are offering what the bill is striving for?

Á (1145)

Chief Lance Haymond: No, I don't believe so. I think the whole process that led to Bill C-7 was flawed, the bill itself is flawed, and speaking again from my own perspective, it really is not going to address the fundamental issues and problems we face on a daily basis. I'm not in any position to speak for other individual communities and how they view it, but for myself, I don't think there should be the kind of piecemeal approach where you can pick and choose. It is either something we can wholeheartedly support or, in the case of the present bill, something we can entirely reject, based on the premise that the whole process was flawed, leading to a very flawed piece of legislation.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Now we invite you to make closing remarks.

Chief Lance Haymond: I reiterate what I said. Although government chooses to develop legislation, I think it's vital and very important that at the beginning of a process, even before they start looking at the type of legislation, they should come and sit down and consult with our communities, consult with our nation, take an appreciation of the realities we have to live. As I mentioned, we are very open to working in a process that respects our rights and does not impose another government's will on the dreams and aspirations we have as an Algonquin nation. Allow us to have our rightful place, give us tools that will enable us to take charge of our own destiny and become less and less dependent on the federal government. I believe we have the capacity through working together, but in having a government agenda that does not really give us the opportunity to address it, we will be continuing to debate these types of issues into the future, unless the approach and the recognition we require is given to us by government.

That is my final comment.

The Chair: We thank you very much.

Chief Lance Haymond: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chair: I now call upon the Kitcisakik Anicinape Community.

[English]

I invite the Kitcisakik Anicinape Community, Chief James Papatie. Welcome, chief. We have 30 minutes together. We invite you to make your presentation, and hopefully, you will allow some time for questions.

Chief James Papatie (Kitcisakik Anicinape Community): [Witness speaks in his native language]

Á (1150)

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Is there is a possibility of a translator? I'd like to hear.

The Chair: We don't have that capability.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Okay. I don't understand.

The Chair: Nobody does.

Chief James Papatie: [Witness speaks in his native language]

Á (1155)

[Translation]

My name is Jimmy Papatie and I am the Chief of the 330-member Kitcisakik Community. Of the Anishinabe Algonquin, we are probably the last members of the community not to have reserve status. Our community is considered the poorest in eastern Canada. Contrary to what is happening in other communities, ours is home neither to development nor to tools. We still enjoy this kind of freedom.

In my presentation, I pointed out that one hundred years ago, your government brought in the Indian Act which completely altered our relationship with the land.

Through its policies, your government determined that our spirituality and ways of praying to the Creator had to change. Existing religions were substituted for ours.

Your governments decreed that our language had to change and that it should be replaced with French or English.

Your government also brought in a policy designed to remove our children and to set up native residential schools across Canada, in the name of civilization and progress, because we were looked upon as an inferior race.

The Algonquin nation, the Anishinabe, once roamed this land, land that still belongs to our people. We never signed a treaty with your government. Our nation was never conquered either. Our people came together to discuss and exchange ideas. Occasionally, we would discuss matters of no particular importance, but we were free to commune with the symbol of our very existence, namely the land.

During the 1950s, your government decided to establish native reserves. This decision broke the spirit of the Algonquin people. We were warehoused on reserves and today, these reserves are proving to be very costly to the State. And for what? For progress. The government decreed that the Anishinabeg were incapable of administering their own affairs or of making decisions. They were looked upon as an inferior race.

In 1980, 1985 and 1988, your government asked us to decide who was Indian and who was not, who was Anishinabeg and who was not. Our chief at the time consulted his people. We came up with a definition with a view to determining who was an Kitcisakik Anishinabeg and who was not. The definition was written in our native Algonquin language. Your government rejected it because it was not drafted in either of the country's official languages.

Looking back on what the communities have experienced in recent years, we see that quite simply, people have been stripped of their land and victimized. A gradual genocide has occurred as a result of the government's assimilation policies designed to eradicate a people from the face of the earth. Let me say one thing, however. Our language and our culture have survived because they are still important to us. They reflect our freedom and our ties to the land, which we look upon as our mother.

Â (1200)

You have come here today supposedly to sound us out on this proposed legislation. We also have intelligent individuals in our communities. We have a tradition of the spoken language. We pass along this tradition as we seek to connect our children with the land.

You are seeking our opinion on governance in Bills C-7, C-6 and C-31, and on the Indian Act in general, because your government perceives us as a group of administrators incapable of managing money or doing anything. They want to paint a picture of us as a group that wants to hide things from its members.

This was not how things worked in our community before the arrival of the Europeans. We operated according to an oval structure where everyone was involved in the decision-making process within the community. The only thing the Indian Act accomplished, in so far as our communities are concerned, was to establish the parameters of a tier structure, which does not mesh with our view of the world.

I agree with the principles of transparency and loyalty. I believe in always telling our people the truth, but the truth must be used in such a way that it helps make things better.

The press paints a picture of chiefs as people who live off their members, which is not true. The chiefs of most of Canada's first nations earn a base salary of between $20,000 and $30,000. Looking at the policies in place today, we're being told to take charge of our own affairs. Take charge of our own poverty? No thank you.

What people are saying is quite simple: give us back our lands, lands that you and your government took from us. Give us the resources we need to build a society based on resource sharing, as was once the case. Come and visit our communities. Come and explain to us how you want our lives to change.

What defines us is not a status Indian card, but rather our language. A system cannot define us either.

Basically, what I'm trying to tell you is that you should look at the current state of the Algonquin nation. This nation is only asking for respect. It refuses to die. It wants to be respected, not looked upon as mere numbers. We have never accepted that and we never will.

I would like you to pass this message on to the government. Go back and make your recommendations to the government, because in any event, you work for the government. It was the government, after all, that gave you a mandate to come here and seek out our opinion on proposed governance legislation. Let them know in no uncertain terms that the Government of Canada has no business telling us how to manage our communities. It is in no position to lecture us on running up deficits. These deficits were incurred in an attempt to repair the social damage inflicted by the Indian Act. You are responsible for breaking the spirit of a people and today's leadership is paying for your mistakes. Today's leadership is bringing in programs and services to ease the suffering our members, to stop the suicides and to create jobs.

Â (1205)

The cost of keeping the Algonquin people in a state of dependence over the past 150 years is only the tip of the iceberg. It's represents a mere fraction of what you stand to pay to restore a climate within our communities that will help people once again find some political, economic and social equilibrium.

All we're asking you to do is consider how maintaining communities in a state of dependence is a very costly process, both to you and to your taxpayers. Basically, the Indian Act has kept us in a permanent state of infancy. Yet, we were not and are not children.

How would you have reacted if someone had stripped you of your language, your culture and your spirituality, and then forced their own values and beliefs on your children? How would you have felt? Would you have demanded justice? Would you have demanded an apology?

As we now speak, Algonquin chiefs and leaders throughout Quebec and Canada are busy trying to repair the damage inflicted by the Indian Act. Their role is to secure the future, but adopting governance legislation isn't going to solve the problems. On the contrary, it will only create new ones. And that's not what we want. We want to find solutions.

When will your government ask us what we really want and what we really think? When will it really listen? For now, it doesn't look good. The government doesn't seem ready to listen to us.

Surely you remember the Oka crisis. Again this morning, the media was reporting new problems. Why is that? Because the relationship between the federal government and first nations is based on legislation that is discriminatory, that seeks to impose a colonialist and paternalistic system on a people. That situation needs to change, but it is up to us to lay the groundwork for this change. It is not up to the federal government, to the minister or to the Department of Indian Affairs. All we are asking is for your respect.

I addressed the committee in my native language to show you that the Algonquin language is alive and well and not about to die out. As a people, we refuse to die out because we still have things we want to teach you and share with you.

That's all I wanted to say this morning. I concur with the principles and comments of my colleagues, as well as with the issues raised and the views expressed. I support them because I am one of them. I work alongside them every day to improve the welfare of my community. Thank you.

Â (1210)

The Chair: That you very much for that excellent presentation. I congratulate you for presenting part our your remarks in your native language.

I chaired the committee in 1996-1997 when a study was done on the education of first nations. One of the biggest problems identified was the loss of language for an entire generation. People expressed concern about the children and wondered how this problem could be rectified. As a Franco-Ontarian, I can sympathize with your plight. Don't believe for a moment that Franco-Ontarians had an easy time of it. The same assimilation laws providing also targeted francophones.

The committee held hearings across the country. In Western Canada, we met with many representatives and chiefs of first nations who had French names, but spoke no French at all as a result of being assimilated. The assimilation of aboriginals and francophones was a calculated, deliberate objective. Therefore, I totally understand what you're saying.

Again, I congratulate you and I am pleased for your children's sake that you continue to speak your language. I hope this is true throughout your community because in order to survive, a people cannot lose its language. To each his own when it comes to language, culture and religion. These elements complement one another like ingredients in a recipe. If one ingredient is missing, the cake will not rise. Therefore, I understand what you're saying, I congratulate you and I admire your stand. Moreover, you spoke without the benefit of notes, which means that you live and breathe your language.

We have five minutes. Each party will have two minutes for questions and answers. We'll see after that.

Nevertheless, you can make a comment, Mr. Loubier, if you so wish.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chief Papatie, thank you very much for your presentation. I want to assure you that although I didn't understand the first part of your presentation or your beautiful language, I believe I did catch a few things. Even though we may not be familiar with a language someone else is speaking, it's possible to pick up on certain messages or speech inflections. I sensed some pride and dignity and some anger in your words over the lack of respect you have received. I don't think I'm wrong about that.

As I listened to you continue your presentation in French, I realized that I had understood the gist of your message. I was delighted to hear you speak your beautiful language.

May I make a suggestion to the committee? When an organization of united nations meets, as we are seeing here today because this is a meeting of two, or even three nations, namely the Algonquin, Canadian and Quebec nations, normally arrangements are made for translation. Therefore, when meetings are scheduled with first nations, perhaps it would be a good idea, Mr. Chairman, to arrange for interpretation or simultaneous translation in the language of our guest speakers. I think that's the least we can do.

Chief Papatie, you stated that your first nation was the last Algonquin first nation not to be recognized as such or to have been ceded land. Why is that? Is there any chance that this might change, provided your energies and resources are not diverted to ridiculous initiatives such as Bill C-7?

Â (1215)

Chief James Papatie: I'd like to correct something. We know that the Algonquin are a nation. However, according to international criteria, the same cannot be said of Quebec because it has not gained its independence. Canada is a nation is the true sense of the word.

As far as Kitcisakik is concerned, the reason why we find ourselves in this situation today is because during the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, the Department of Indian Affairs tried to impose on us the same model for a reserve as it used for the approximately 640 other communities in Canada. However, our community didn't like the model because at the time, it provided no guarantee that our remaining lands would be protected, nor did it guarantee access to resources. The community only saw strangers stepping in. There were already a number of other communities near us. We saw what life on the reserve was like, how people could not support themselves or be independent in any way. Increasingly, we saw how they were losing their hold on the reserve land. It belonged to the Crown, to the Government of Canada. Even the reserve infrastructures were the property of the government. It was as if the reserve was a military base.

The people of Kitcisakik were determined not to accept this model because they did not want to sever their sacred ties with the land. On three occasions.... I recall that I was a young man at the time and I often heard this said. The last model proposed was rejected because government officials had decided how many houses would be built on the reserve, what colour each one would be, where the cemetery would be located, and so forth. Just imagine. We found it genuinely offensive to have this kind of model imposed on us when we were in fact making our wishes known.

For some time now, we have been advocating another model, one that would ultimately spell the end of the reserve system in Canada.

[English]

The Chair: Merci beaucoup.

Mr. Dromisky, two minutes.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Thank you for your presentation.

I have some personal questions to ask. To me you look very young. I'm much older, of course, that's possibly why you look very young. Where did you learn the language? Did you get it in the school, or after school in special classes, did your grandparents teach you, did your parents teach you? Could you give me some idea of how you acquire the language?

[Translation]

Chief James Papatie: I did not learn the language from a textbook. I learned it by turning to the land, by moving about the land with my father, my mother and other members of the community, by listening to them speak their language and by identifying the world in which I lived. The Algonquin language is a living language, one that cannot be taught directly to persons within the confines of a classroom. For the language to survive, we must turn to our world, to the land. Our world is rooted in the land.

The majority of young people in the community and those people my age who speak the language learned it by turning to the land, not by attending classes. Many people dropped out of school in order to continue speaking their language.

Â (1220)

The Chair: Thank you very much. On glancing around the table, it's clear to see that we have developed a deep admiration for you. Thank you for your excellent presentation.

[English]

From the Wolf Lake First Nations we have Chief Harry St. Denis, or le chef Harry St. Denis.

Chief Harry St-Denis (Wolf Lake First Nation): It doesn't matter which, because neither one is Algonquin. Unlike Chief Papatie, I don't speak the Algonquin language, and that is a direct result of the federal government especially interfering in the daily lives of the Algonquin people and their policies.

I would like to give greetings to my fellow chiefs, the grand chiefs, and other Algonquin citizens who are here today, as well as members of the standing committee and their staff. On behalf of the Algonquin community of Wolf Lake, I want to thank you for the opportunity to be here today and to give you the position of the Wolf Lake First Nation.

To provide some background, the Wolf Lake First Nation's territory is located around the head waters of the Dumoine River in northwestern Quebec and west into Ontario. We are the smallest Algonquin community, with about 250 members. We are also a landless band, meaning we do not have a reserve to act as a community and service centre. Although we still maintain our relationship with our traditional territory and stay at the same places our ancestors lived at centuries ago, many of our members live in urban centres around the territory. We are currently in negotiations with the Government of Canada to try to obtain reserve lands for a community centre for our people. Since we have never lived on a reserve, the Indian Act was never successfully applied to our community, although at different times the Department of Indian Affairs tried to do so. We still manage our affairs by custom, including elections. Our custom election procedures have been codified.

Our community is very concerned about Bill C-7 for a number of reasons, and I would like to mention some of them to you today.

Stable and open self-government is important if we are to move forward as Algonquin people, and we respect the values of openness, transparency, and accountability. However, our challenges go far beyond this, and with Bill C-7, the government is ignoring the approaches recommended by the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. This is a major concern for us. The royal commission spent years holding hearings and considering the issues. They had real consultations, not like the fake ones Indian Affairs held on first nations governance. They thought a lot about how to improve the day-to-day lives of our people and our relations with governments, and they spent about $60 million doing it. After all that work they didn't even bother to recommend tinkering with the Indian Act. They said it would be a waste of time. Instead, they laid out a road map based on the renewal of our nations and our own institutions of government based on our own customs. They concluded that we have an inherent right to govern ourselves in certain core areas, which include leadership selection and membership. They also concluded that other governments had no right to intrude in those areas. Why then has this government figured that it will ignore those recommendations and do exactly what the royal commission recommended against? The members of the committee should think about this. It should raise alarm bells about what the real intentions of this legislation are.

Another thing the royal commission said was that for self-government to work and for our communities to improve, we needed more access to land and resources within our territories. You can have the best institutions of government, but without a functioning economy, it won't do any good. Yet this government has really done nothing positive to deal with the land issue in the Algonquin territory or to improve our access to land and resources or the benefits that come from them.

Â (1225)

As far as accountability and transparency go, I already mentioned that the Wolf Lake First Nation has codified its customary election code. We have also adopted financial and administrative policies, so that our accounts are open to our members for them to see and for us to explain. We have already done these things, and anyway, the department can and does demand these things through its use of funding agreements. So my question is, if we are already doing it and if there are other ways in which the department can require these things, why do we need Bill C-7? It's like a slap in the face for the communities who have already taken the steps to address these issues and put these reforms in place. Our accountability and our authority come from our people, our customs, and our traditions. We don't need another one of your laws to give us this authority or to tell us what to do.

That brings me to something we should all be worried about. The members of the committee should also be concerned about the way this bill has been pushed through despite the opposition of the elected leadership and our members. How can Minister Nault talk about promoting democratic principles when he discredits us as leaders and insists on imposing something on us that we clearly don't want. It's as if he wants to provoke us or start a fight or create a conflict. What I worry about is that he might get his wish, and it's not just Bill C-7, but the way this government has been imposing many things on our communities for the past years.

We have a large and youthful population, and the steps this government is taking will make things worse, not better, for them. Right now they are taking their anger and frustrations out on each other. You can see this in the terrible statistics about youth suicide and violence in our communities. But sooner or later the day will come when they will take the frustration and point it somewhere else. The royal commission also talked about this, but it seems this government doesn't understand. Already we hear youth telling us there's no point in negotiating or talking to the government, because the government is not sincere and only wants to impose on us yet again. And here we have a government that is proving them right. By trying to impose its will on our people, this government is laying the groundwork for a very long conflict. You should really think very carefully about whether or not this is the way you want to deal with our people and whether this legacy of conflict is what you want. If this bill becomes law, our communities will continue opposition to it in the political arena and in the courts. We have seen lots of governments and lots of ministers come and go, but we will still be here. Our opposition to this bill will continue, and you can be sure the next federal government will have to pick up the pieces if this government insists on moving in this way.

In closing, I respectfully request that the committee recommend that Bill C-7 be withdrawn. It cannot be fixed, and the process that has been used to impose it on our people is shameful in this day and age and in a country that is supposed to be proud of its respect for human rights. If you want a positive alternative, start to talk with us in true partnership about how to implement the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples.

Although I appreciate the chance to come here today to speak with you, I have to also say that this should not be considered as consultation and that my appearance here cannot be used as justification for the infringement of my community's rights.

I thank you. Meegwetch.

The Chair: Thank you.

Chief Harry St-Denis: Mr. Chairman, before we get started, I wanted to table the document that indicates clearly that there are safeguards on accountability and everything already, but I didn't bring a copy with me. So if I can, I will mail it to the clerk.

The Chair: Yes. We appreciate that. I should say that if anyone who has presented today or who will be presenting tables a document, it will be translated and distributed to all members of the committee, even those who couldn't be here today. Thank you for reminding us of that.

Five-minute round, Mr. Vellacott.

Â (1230)

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Thank you, Chief, for being with us today.

You mentioned this contribution agreement, and I'll be interested in going over that and reading the details. I'm wondering what amount, if you care to indicate it here, you get from INAC and through that contribution agreement. Is it something you feel comfortable sharing in this context?.

Chief Harry St-Denis: Because we are a community that is not on reserve, we don't have access to the normal programs offered by the Department of Indian Affairs. We basically have core funding, which is about $105,000 a year. The rest is educational support, and it's money in one hand and out the other to support the students.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: That was going to be my second question. The purpose of the $105,000 is to fund core activities.

Chief Harry St-Denis: It's everything.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Okay. And the education dollars are in and out, as you said.

Chief Harry St-Denis: Yes, for tuition and living allowances.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Okay.

Are you anticipating that at some point in the near future you will have a land base, that you will have a reserve? Are you wanting that? You mentioned here that you are a landless band and don't have a reserve to act as a community and service centre.

Chief Harry St-Denis: That's the mandate I have now from the people of Wolf Lake. This request goes back to the 1800s, that the Wolf Lake people have their own community, basically, and there were always different excuses. Most of the time the federal government blamed it on the province. Back in the 1980s the province came on side, and all of a sudden the federal government had a problem, it didn't meet their policy. But it is something the community desires.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: So a lot of Bill C-7, because it's got to do with law-making or bylaws that some would suggest on reserves and so on, would not even apply at this point or until such time as you have a reserve?

Chief Harry St-Denis: Yes, at this point most of it doesn't, but in the event that we do, it will. The Indian Act doesn't apply to us in a lot of situations, but eventually it will. But it does affect us, especially in the area of our custom election codes. We have always done it according to the traditions of the Wolf Lake people. We don't see any need for the federal government to pass legislation that will force us to come under the provisions of any new laws.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: You do your best, then, to provide with that limited budget some basic services. In effect, you are an off-reserve first nation, if you will, like many we have had before us. So in electing your chief and council, all the off-reserve people, because that's what your community consists of, get the vote. Would you anticipate that down the road, at the point where you have a reserve, a land settlement, and so on, you will continue to have your off-reserve people voting in respect of chief and council and all the other details of the administration of your first nation?

Chief Harry St-Denis: All of our people were always allowed to participate in important community decisions. That's something that will never change, as far as I am concerned, and in the fact that we have adopted our own election codes, it's clear.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: We hear about struggles sometimes. Those on reserve say, well, we have got limited funding as it is, and as for those off reserve, we don't know if we want to share the pot of money that way. But you have a different situation and obvious empathy, because you are off reserve at present. So you would say that in perpetuity in the future the off-reserve people should have full participation in all matters, at such time as you have a reserve.

Â (1235)

Chief Harry St-Denis: Yes, for sure. I can understand the problems this causes with some communities where the funding is based on a formula that considers only on-reserve population, but this is where the importance of especially the two grand chiefs in the whole issue of the redistribution of the lands and resources to the first nation community where they rightfully belong comes in, to be able to include everyone. If we have our land back, there is no problem about enough money for everybody. That's the whole issue here, the land. If you don't have land, you can't have an economy. You hear Chief Haymond saying he has 23 hectares. How can you even think about economic development in a community that is just measured in acres? It's crazy.

The Chair: Thank you.

There being no more questions, we invite you to make closing remarks, and you have all the time you need.

Chief Harry St-Denis: I thought there would be more questions, but one of the things I would like to talk about is the royal commission report. I think a lot of first nation people had high hopes for the report. The federal government spent about $60 million to get views from all people. First nations, the general public, government officials, everybody was invited to participate in this report. You had some excellent quality people co-chairing the commission, Judge Dussault and Georges Erasmus, both very well-respected individuals. It contained some very good recommendations that had the support of first nations across the country. I don't know what happened to it. Where did it end up? It's somewhere sitting on a shelf collecting dust. We wouldn't be here today talking about Bill C-7 if the recommendations in the royal commission report had been implemented.

I have come to my own conclusion about what the real problem is with the royal commission report, and it has to do with different federal parties. Because it was a Tory initiative, the Liberals didn't want to give the Tory government any credit for the report, so rather than follow any of the recommendations, I think they just put it on the shelf, and it's a shame, because it was a very good report.

It's always like that when you are dealing with first nations. We have to deal with the federal government, we have to deal with provincial governments. The first nations are always the meat in the sandwich. To me, this whole process here today is totally unnecessary. It's not going to improve the lives of our people. The people of Wolf Lake are quite capable of deciding for themselves, as you can see. We have put our election code in place. But I feel sorry for the communities that are forced into it, because we had a hell of a time to do it with the people driving the process. It took about three different mail-outs and I don't know how many community meetings, and we are a community of about 150 electors. This didn't just start with those community meetings, it's a process we've been going through for the last 15 years. We would try to make changes based on the different duties of the chief and council. We tried to implement this section one year and another section the next year, change the mandates, the time of the mandates. It took us a hell of a long time to get to adopting it. It's only in about the last two years that we have begun to put it down in writing. So I don't know how those communities are expected to accomplish all of this in the timeframe the government is providing here.

So for us, the bill is totally unnecessary, because we do all of these things already. It's not going to improve anything for the people of Wolf Lake. We have to really take a serious look at what the intent of this bill is, because it's not going to improve our lives, that's for sure. What will improve our lives is access to lands and resources and the ability to deal with all matters that concern us without being forced by legislation. That's definitely the wrong way to go. I know the intention is that self-government agreements can be reached, and this is an interim measure, but that, to me, will never work. If this legislation is forced on the aboriginal people of this country and becomes the foundation for negotiating self-government agreements after it, people will always be left with a bad taste in their mouths, because something was forced on them. I think that is something this government should really consider.

I respectfully request that the committee recommend to the federal government that this legislation be withdrawn and that they get back to the negotiating table with the aboriginal people of this land, because this legislation concerns them, and only them.

Thank you.

Â (1240)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We now go to spontaneous presentations.

[Translation]

We now call upon Daniel Pien to take the floor for two minutes.

Welcome.

Mr. Daniel Pien (As Individual): Good day. I am the Chief of the Lac-Simon Community which is located approximately 35 kilometres south of route 117.

I will attempt to give a brief overview of the disclosure of information concerning my community's accountability. When I was a young man, I often took part in my band council's annual assemblies, along with the elected elders.

We must never lose sight of our people. To consult with people is more than just accounting for one's actions. It also involves ensuring people's safety in the forest. When referring to the land occupied, it is important to be informed of the goings-on at the political level so that we can intervene at the opportune moment when forestry companies or outfitting operations pursue their activities without consulting us. Similarly, snowmobile trails in Quebec criss-cross our lands. That's just an overview of the situation.

I only became chief on February 8 of this year. As I see it, the Council of Chiefs has never lost its focus or ties to the Mother Land.

However, one upsetting fact as far as we are concerned is that we are represented by an intermediary, whereas there are laws to protect those who are incapable of speaking for themselves. For example, if a person is involved in an accident and cannot answer questions, someone else can act as that person's representative, pursuant to a mandate in case of inability.

The Chair: I must interrupt you. You have been talking for two and a half minutes. I'll give you 20 seconds, no more.

Mr. Daniel Pien: We are capable of making our own decisions, of determining our own policy directions and of deciding how to deal with our own people. We have never lost this belief in our ability to do so.

Â (1245)

The Chair: Thank you very much. It's regrettable that you were only elected in February. Your predecessor or predecessors received the invitation to make a presentation last fall. Had you been aware of this, you would have had a full half hour. We would have liked to hear more from you, but we have to hold you to two minutes.

Thank you very much. I now invite Edouard Kistabish to take the floor.

Mr. Daniel Pien: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: I invite Edouard Kistabish. Again, two minutes.

[Translation]

You have two minutes.

Mr. Edouard Kistabish (As Individual): Two and a half minutes.

The Chair: I already know that you're a politician, so that if I say two and half minutes, you'll take three. Two minutes really means two and half minutes.

Mr. Edouard Kistabish: Witness speaks his native language.

Good morning everyone.

I have considered the first three clauses of the bill. The Abitibiwinni Community already has its own electoral rules. We have been holding annual assemblies to audit our financial statements since the 1960s. We already do all of this.

As Chief, I think Bill C-7 does nothing but mask the real problems communities are experiencing. As aboriginals, we're already doing everything the government is demanding of us, and I don't think the government is in a position to be telling us what we are actually capable of doing.

Since the 1990, we have been practising sound management, thanks to good managers, and as a result, we are not running a deficit. That's something the government can't deny. It should be talking about our accomplishments, instead of continuing to say that Indians are poor managers. We are proud to be Algonquin and our pride will never waver. Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Voices: Hear, hear!

The Chair:I think it's important to mention that. We have travelled across this country--I think this is the 18th region that we have visited--and to believe that all first nations communities are poor administrators is indeed erroneous. The majority of them are sound administrators. We've seen some remarkable examples of good management and the government, indeed all governments, could certainly take their cue from these communities.

The aim of the bill is to provide assistance to the handful of communities in greatest need. Let us hope that everyone will be sincere in their efforts to develop regulations and codes, to ensure that this study results in a sharing of your best practices with communities experiencing problems.

However, I do want to underscore the fact that it is unfair that so many people tar all first nations with the same brush. Some of these people live in my riding and they are quick to criticize first nations. I have a responsibility to defend you, as all MPs do, or at least should do. The committee is well aware of the many fine examples of sound management practices.

I would now like to welcome Lucien Wabanonik and I invite him to begin his presentation.

[English]

Mr. Lucien Wabanonik (As Individual): [Witness speaks in his native language]

Â (1250)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

[Translation]

I now call on Albert Tenasco.

[English]

I now invite Albert Tenasco.

Mr. Albert Tenasco (As Individual): [Witness speaks in his native language]

Good afternoon to each one of you. I will speak English. I would prefer to speak my language, but so everybody will understand, I will speak English.

I want to welcome you to the Algonquin territory where we are today. We're a non-treaty people. We never ceded our land. I've heard a lot of different presentations here similar to what I've heard before, dealing with the frustrations we face in each of our own communities. I was born 72 some years ago. I've heard representatives of our own tribal council, Anishinabe Nation. And I've seen many things in all those years I've been involved in. I was first elected to a council in my community in 1969. That was the year they were supposed to abolish our Indian reserves right across the land. So this isn't anything new, what I see here today. We've been fighting for our survival, to be recognized as human beings in our own country. We're not animals. One of the members asked what common histories we have in our community. You just heard one chief make a presentation where the size of reserve was 400 people. What do you expect? How does the government expect the people to eat?

Â (1255)

The Chair: Thank you very much. We appreciate your presentation.

[Translation]

I'd like to thank everyone from the Val d'Or region who participated in some capacity in this morning's meeting. Your comments will prove invaluable to the committee as it continues its work.

[English]

I'd like to thank everyone who participated and contributed from the region of Val-d'Or. We appreciate your assistance, and we assure you that we take our work seriously and will do the best we can.

We suspend proceedings until tomorrow morning at 9 at 237-C, Centre Block.