Skip to main content
EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, March 6, 1997

.1133

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you all for being here. We'll call the consultation process to order. I don't call it a meeting because there is no requirement to have a quorum in these proceedings, although I'm sure more of the members will be appearing. I hope so.

The order of the day is Bill C-79, an act to permit certain modifications in the application of the Indian Act to bands that desire them. Today we are pleased and honoured to have with us the National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, Chief Ovide Mercredi.

Chief, I will not use up any more of your time. We are very interested in your presentation, and I will turn it over to you at this point. The committee has decided that we have an hour and a half. You may use as much time as you desire. You've been here so many times that you knew the procedures before we did, but we would appreciate it if there is time left for members to ask questions.

Chief Mercredi, please.

Chief Ovide Mercredi (National Chief, Assembly of First Nations): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning.

.1135

We are here today to consider the implications of Bill C-79, the Indian Act Optional Modification Act, which was tabled in the House of Commons on December 12, 1996, by Minister of Indian Affairs Ron Irwin. As you know by now, the assembly does not support this draft legislation. In fact we vigorously oppose it, and I'm here under protest, because we are of the view that this bill should never have reached this stage in the legislative process to begin with.

Although we are appearing before you today, I am under no illusions about the role this body has in the process. The government has already made it clear that it intends to use its majority in this committee to press forward with Bill C-79 despite the fact that it has been rejected by the overwhelming majority of first nations.

The level of this rejection is not misinformation, as the minister would have you believe. It is a fact. Before Christmas, you and your colleagues in the House and the Senate received a package containing hundreds of resolutions and letters rejecting this initiative, and I table them with the committee once again today. Many more have been received by the assembly since that time. Together these resolutions and letters represent the will of 85% of the first nations in Canada. Whether or not you, as individual members of Parliament, choose to be a party to this subversion of the democratic process is a personal choice that you will have to make and live with.

I understand that during his presentation to your committee Minister Irwin went to great lengths not only to counter our analysis of the draft bill, but also to try to discredit the assembly itself. His preoccupation with the assembly tells me that we must be doing something right, and that the government has something to hide. And what they are hiding is the fact that this bill is being rammed through on the pretence that there has been adequate consultation when there has in fact been nothing of the sort.

There are three key areas I want to highlight today: the role and mandate of the assembly; our position on the draft legislation and the process that led to its introduction in the House; and the vision we have that lies beyond the confines of the Indian Act, looking to the future.

The Assembly of First Nations is made up of the chiefs of the first nations across the country. They determine what the specific mandate and priorities of the assembly shall be, and I operate based on the instructions I receive from them. Unlike the Minister of Indian Affairs - who, like his 19th century predecessors, derives his power from the state's ability to impose its will on our people - I must operate based on consensus and at the direction of the chiefs. I cannot act unilaterally or against the wishes of the leaders and the communities I represent. I do not have the luxury of the prerogative powers of the minister, powers he exercises without any accountability to our people, or to Parliament for that matter. Therefore, whatever positions the Assembly of First Nations take are not mine, but those of the chiefs themselves, and their individual first nations.

.1140

It's important for you to understand this, because earlier this week Minister Irwin was trying to plant the idea in your minds that the assembly does not represent the chiefs, or that it represents only Ovide Mercredi. This is an untruth, and the minister knows that full well. The fact that he would rely on such tactics in his efforts to defend this bill simply shows that after 130 years of confederation, the Government of Canada still cannot bring itself to accept the views of our people if they differ from what the government wants to impose.

You have before you, attached to this brief, copies of resolutions adopted by the assembly between July 1996 and February 1997. They represent the result of lengthy and full democratic debate and the consensus that has emerged over the course of the past eight months as we have considered this government's legislative initiative regarding Bill C-79. These resolutions reflect the collective will of the chiefs, and together they are the basis of my mandate with respect to Bill C-79.

All and everything I have said and done with respect to Bill C-79 is based on this mandate. It has been clear and consistent, and it has two fundamental parts. The first is to reject this legislative initiative because it does not reflect the priorities of the first nations and because both the process and the content are prejudicial to our interests. The second is to seek as an alternative a cooperative process of dialogue and negotiation with the Government of Canada, to consider and identify the full range of available options related to policy and legislative reform, with the objective of mutual agreement and action. Let me now deal with each of these in turn.

First, about our priorities, I'll tell you what we want. It is not difficult to do this, since this has been consistent as a message from our leaders for generations. We want to improve the social and economic conditions of our people. We want to reach agreement with Canada on the meaning and implementation of our treaties. We want to resolve the land question. We want to have the freedom and liberty to exercise our right of self-government.

Our problem has been that other governments have not learned to listen to us. Earlier this week, Minister Irwin spoke of consultation. He linked this current initiative to previous consultations and efforts to amend the act, dating back to the 1940s, when many of the chiefs I represent were not even born yet. He was more correct than he knew when drawing this comparison, because in the 1940s and 1950s, when our leaders came to Ottawa or attended hearings in their territories they carried these same messages with them to give to government. But government only chose to hear those parts of those submissions that dealt with its agenda, and it ignored the rest.

The same was true in the consultations on the Indian Act that took place in the 1960s. Our leaders brought forward the same issues to Jean Chrétien, who was then Minister of Indian Affairs. In response, the man who is now Prime Minister ignored what they had to say, and instead came up with his white paper on Indian policy, which recommended the termination of our treaty and aboriginal rights and the assimilation of our people.

.1145

There have not been forty years of consultation on the Indian Act. The minister's assertion of this is simply a bald-faced lie.

In this connection, I found it odd that Minister Irwin would invoke the Penner report on self-government in his defence of Bill C-79. This is because, far from supporting piecemeal amendments to the Indian Act or similar variations like Bill C-79, the all-party committee rejected the concept completely. I quote from page 47 of his final report:

The Penner committee concluded correctly that toying with the Indian Act would only divert scarce resources and political will from far more important tasks and priorities related to self-government.

We have now seen this prediction come to pass. Minister Irwin stated to you earlier this week that there would be ``no penalties for choosing not to opt in and no prizes for choosing to do so''. Yet the 1997-98 main estimates of Indian Affairs state unequivocally that there certainly will be:

This tells us that there will not be money to address first nation priorities because available and shrinking resources will be diverted to the implementation of this bill and similar unilateral initiatives. There will indeed be penalties and prizes, and they will be awarded according to the priorities of this government, not those of the first nations.

The optional nature of this proposed legislation is misleading. The fact is that this government will use its spending priorities to reward those who opt in and punish those who do not. There are ample tools at the disposal of the bureaucracy, whether through policy or fiscal pressure, to convince first nations to opt in whether they want to or not.

As you know, this government was elected on the basis of its now infamous red book, which contained a number of specific commitments regarding aboriginal people, including this one:

In fact, since being elected, this government has done exactly the opposite.

.1150

With respect to policy, the so-called ``inherent right'' framework was drawn up behind closed doors by bureaucrats and imposed on first nations against their will. Far from recognizing our inherent right to govern ourselves, this policy merely entrenches Canada's power to dictate what we can and cannot do as a people. If there are first nations lining up for discussions under this policy, it is not through choice, but because they have been driven to do so as a result of the lack of other forums and the poverty in their own communities.

With respect to spending, this government has undertaken program reviews one and two without any consultation whatsoever with the first nations. These reviews have had a dramatic effect on government decision-making related to expenditures in the area of Indian affairs, yet there has been no effort to involve our leadership seriously in discussions related to spending priorities or fiscal relations.

Moreover, the red book mentions absolutely nothing about amendments to the Indian Act or alternative legislation. In fact, Bill C-79 is completely contrary to the policy commitments the Liberal Party made prior to their election to office.

The evidence demonstrates that this government cannot and should not be trusted. They have lied to the Canadian public with respect to the GST, and they have lied to the first nations with respect to their red book commitments.

This leads me to the process that has been used to get the bill to this stage. Attached to this brief you will find a chronology of events that reviews the details. This should put in proper context the version of events the minister and his officials presented to you two days ago.

The fact of the matter is that the minister chose to carry out his consultations by correspondence and without any pretense of meeting the most basic definition of what constitutes consultation. He solicited recommended changes to the Indian Act from the chiefs. Some responded with specific requests. Most did not respond at all.

Once it was put into motion, there was nothing in place to monitor or guide the internal departmental process. And as in the past, the bureaucrats took control. The list of proposed amendments began to grow as the bureaucrats themselves began to make additions of their own. In this respect, the minister's assertion that all these amendments have come from first nations themselves is patently untrue.

Throughout the process, we have called upon the Government of Canada to enter into cooperative discussions with our leaders to identify priorities and options and to hold off any legislative measures until we've had an opportunity for a full and comprehensive review of the options. We were, and still are, seeking a process that is transparent and accountable and based on trust and cooperation.

.1155

What we have been seeking in this respect is no more than what the minister himself pledged to the House of Commons in his performance report for 1995 and 1996. I quote from his report:

We have no confidence in this government. Here we have further evidence of the minister's tendency to mislead not only the first nations but also the House of Commons itself. The minister and his officials have steadfastly refused to engage in any substantive discussions with us on these matters. They have ignored and bypassed our established mechanisms for public debate and accountability and instead chosen to engage in a process of dialogue by stealth, approaching leaders individually and outside the public forums which would allow for scrutiny and democratic debate by our own people.

Meanwhile this government has used a special procedure in the House to accelerate the legislative process and put this bill before your committee prior to second reading. The minister's promise of ``extensive public hearings'' has been transformed into one meagre week of hearings by your committee, and through teleconferencing, no less. This has all the appearances of a government that will stop at nothing to impose its will on our people, even if it means denying us our fundamental democratic right to speak to an issue which stands to affect our legal relationship with the federal crown dramatically.

Is this evidence of ``accountability'' or ``transparency''? Is this evidence of the government's commitment to instil confidence and trust in public institutions? I don't think so. Even those members of this committee who are Liberals would have great difficulty arguing this point. All of you have a public duty to ensure the issues relating to Bill C-79 received full consideration. This includes ensuring that those first nations who choose to do so will be free to exercise their most fundamental human right, to speak to the issues in this forum. Your job should be to make it easier, not harder, for first nations to have their voices heard. If you cave in to the wishes of the minister and his officials by foreclosing public debate, you will be guilty, along with them, of perpetuating the colonial legacy of the past century.

To close this part of the presentation, I would like to contrast a process used here with that used in another bill, relating to the management of Indian lands, Bill C-75, which was also introduced in the House before Christmas and which came about as a result of extensive consultations, preparatory work, and joint development between Canada and fourteen first nations. The whole process began almost ten years ago and involved the signing of a framework agreement between Canada and the affected first nations before the legislation was even drafted. Even after Bill C-75 becomes law, each community must go through a referendum process to ensure there is community consent before it will apply to their lands.

Whatever its shortcomings or merits, the fact remains that the lands bill has gone through an extensive and cooperative process of development and it has the public support of those first nations who have sponsored it. The bill deals with only one item, lands, and it will affect only those fourteen communities. None of this can be said of the process that led to Bill C-79. This is particularly alarming since it covers many more issue areas and also because it requires a much lower consent threshold for it to apply. Why has the minister not applied the same standard of care to Bill C-79 as he has to Bill C-75?

.1200

Having dealt with the process, I would like now to turn to the contents of Bill C-79 itself. We have enclosed for your information three legal opinions which have been prepared on this legislative initiative. At this time I will focus on some key elements of the bill and refer committee members to those opinions for more detailed analysis.

The ultimate objective of Bill C-79 is assimilation, not the empowerment of our people. This can be seen by the very fact that this bill purports to delegate powers to first nations which are internal to our communities and integral to our culture in areas such as leadership selection, estates, and lands. Even this government's so-called ``inherent right'' policy framework, narrow as it is, concedes that these are subject-matters which are already recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. In its final report, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples concluded that these are core areas of first nations jurisdiction, which are protected by section 35 and can be exercised freely without interference by governments.

Why then does the minister propose to delegate these powers and to seek first nations consent to the delegation of these powers? It is because the minister wants first nations' consent to his control over the first nations, consent which was never obtained in 1876, when the first consolidated Indian Act was imposed on our nations. That's the effect of opting in: you are consenting to the legislation.

Clause 8 of the bill would give Indian bands the capacity of a natural person and it introduces the concept of a corporate personality. This is a concept alien to our people. It is a direct attack on our customs, practices, and traditions. Mr. Irwin's rationale for this particular clause is that it will allow bands to enter into contracts, to sue and be sued. But that is already the case law, which has established that bands can enter into contracts and sue and be sued.

So what is the purpose of this clause? It may well be that in the future Department of Justice lawyers can argue that a first nation which adopted this bill can no longer possess the inherent right of self-government, since it consented, by taking a corporate personality which is not a practice, custom, or tradition that was integral to its culture prior to European contact.

The minister has asserted that this bill will increase the powers of first nations and decrease his powers. He has responded to the fact that many clauses of the proposed bill will actually increase his powers by saying this is only to make things more efficient and less cumbersome.

.1205

However, the practical effect of taking existing responsibilities away from the federal cabinet and transferring them to the minister is to increase the powers of his bureaucrats and senior officials. To consolidate the control of bureaucrats over our lives is to perpetuate the abuse we have been subjected to for the past century. It does nothing to resolve the matter of ministerial accountability to our nations, or to put an end to the arbitrary actions of bureaucrats who have so far been invulnerable to any form of scrutiny or transparency in their dealings with our people.

The minister has assured our people and this committee that nothing in Bill C-79 will adversely affect treaty and aboriginal rights or the fiduciary duties of the federal crown to our peoples. We remember well Minister David Crombie's assurances in 1985 that Bill C-31 would ``leave no First Nation worse off''. In fact, Bill C-31 has had a dramatic and negative impact in our communities because it has increased our membership but there were no resources allocated to adequately provide for the required infrastructure and services for these new members. Meanwhile, the federal government has abandoned all responsibility for mitigating these effects, even though the whole point of the legislation was to remedy a situation that had been created by the Indian Act in the first place.

Due to past experience with amendments to the Indian Act, and especially because of this government's record to date, we have no reason to believe the minister's assurances, and every reason to regard them with suspicion. A close review of Bill C-79 makes it quite clear that a number of provisions will in fact diminish the fiduciary duties of the federal crown with respect to first nations. This is true in the area of lands management - section 18 and section 21 - to provide but one example.

At the same time, the Government of Canada has provided us with no evidence to demonstrate that it has applied the test laid out in the Supreme Court of Canada in the Sparrow case to draft this legislation. In that decision the court ruled that every law that infringes on section 35 rights must be subjected to a rigorous justification process.

We have already described how this bill infringes on our rights by purporting to delegate powers in areas that are internal to our nations and integral to our culture, practices and traditions, and by replacing those practices and traditions with ones that are alien to our culture. The potential impact is considerable. Yet this minister has not even bothered to address the issue of justification in any of his dealings with the first nations on this bill.

There is much more that could be said about the contents of this draft bill, but I will refer to the committee members legal opinions that have been provided for further detail.

To conclude this presentation, I want to leave you with a positive vision for the future. It is easy to pick apart a policy or a draft bill, especially when it is as fundamentally flawed as Bill C-79. But it takes more effort to provide a constructive and forward-looking blueprint for the years to come. I will begin by addressing the issues of legislation and the federal legislative responsibility with respect to first nations.

.1210

The Indian Act is full of contradictions and ambiguity. On the one hand, it is an expression of the federal crown's constitutional responsibility to protect the rights and interests of first nations, pursuant to section 91(24) of the British North America Act, 1867. On the other hand, it has been used as an instrument of legislative control and manipulation, one that has inflicted considerable damage within our communities and nations. Like it or not, the Indian Act has had a profound and significant impact on first nations, but its very existence has also prejudiced any consideration of the federal crown's legislative responsibilities and its legislative options related to ``Indians, and Lands reserved for the Indians''.

As we have mentioned already, any time Canada wants to discuss legislative reform with us, it is tied to the Indian Act. To us, this is simply relying on the mistakes of the past, and it signals a refusal to seriously look to the future and the forging of a new relationship based on the positive and purposive use of section 91, class 24 responsibilities.

If you are serious about changing the relationship between our governments, and if legislation is to play a role, then the Indian Act should have little or no part in the discussion. Your colleague and my long-time acquaintance, Elijah Harper, the Liberal member for Churchill, is quoted in his biography as saying:

I agree wholeheartedly with his conclusion. Nothing good can come from tinkering with the Indian Act. Instead, we should look at new ways of approaching the federal section 91(24) responsibility with a view to the future and to the true decolonization of our peoples.

Let me give you some examples. Why not use legislation to articulate the nature and scope of the federal crown's fiduciary duties to the first nations? Why not use legislation to confirm the crown's commitment to treaty implementation, and to enumerate the crown's treaty responsibilities? Why not use legislation to provide a firm statutory base for fiscal relations between first nations and Canada?

These are only a few examples, but they make my point: If we are going to talk about legislative measures, let us not be shackled by the mistakes of the past; let us leave the Indian Act and its terrible legacy behind us, instead of prolonging it, as the minister seems committed to do.

This leads me to my conclusion: It is true that legislation is only one measure among many that can and should be taken to improve the conditions of our people and to improve and clarify relations between our governments. In his presentation to you, Minister Irwin highlighted the fact that legislation is only one part of the larger picture, only one element of an array of initiatives that are currently sponsored by his government with respect to first nations. The only problem is that this government's program is founded on deception and on the continued colonization of our people, not on our empowerment.

.1215

The whole thrust of federal policy at this point in time is to work towards a final solution of the Indian problem: offloading responsibilities to bands without the resources necessary to fulfil those responsibilities; downloading fiscal responsibility for Indians from the federal government to the provincial governments; containing and circumscribing our authority and jurisdiction; assimilating our peoples; and driving our people off the land and out of their traditional territories. Despite all the talk of consultation and partnership, this process is being driven by the central agencies and imposed by the line departments, without any substantial role for first nations or leadership. And it continues.

The minister is correct in stating that first nations and some of the organizations are involved in these processes, but that doesn't mean these processes are leading anywhere fast, or that they necessarily have the support of the first nations themselves. It is because these are the only games in town, designed and imposed by Canada according to its priorities and agenda. The only reason our people are involved is that they are desperate to find solutions to the abject poverty of their people and the needs of their youth, and they have the continuing hope that the policy environment will somehow improve. This is the reality of today, and I challenge anyone to prove otherwise.

If we are truly to change the basis of our relationship, then the federal government's approach must change, and change quickly. The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples has outlined in detail the financial, economic and social costs of maintaining the status quo. It has also provided us with a blueprint for fundamental change in the way we deal with each other. The assembly has approved the conclusions and recommendations of the final report in principle, subject to further review and discussion. We may all find elements of the report we can't agree with, but the commissioners provided us with enough for us to have positive starting points in our discussions and actions.

Whether or not we all agree on the specifics of the commission's recommendations, one fundamental point remains clear: the federal government must change the way it does business with our governments, and it must embrace authentic partnership based on the principles of fairness and equity. The assembly has proposed a process of dialogue with the Government of Canada to review the available options and to work in true partnership and cooperation to come to an agreement on common approaches, policies and priorities. We need an agreed upon process, agenda and priorities for true cooperative work, so that legislative initiatives are connected with first nations' priorities and goals, not just Canada's. We need to work cooperatively to fit legislative measures into an agreed upon, wider agenda for cooperative action. This is a process that Canada has rejected thus far.

What are some concrete things that can be done immediately to improve circumstances and create a positive environment for true partnership? Here is a list to start with: begin substantive discussions with the first nations on the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples' final report and recommendations; begin to seriously implement the commitments contained in the red book with respect to first nations relations; complete the constitutional agenda that has been untouched by the Liberal government, but in which there remain outstanding commitments with respect to the first nations' constitutional agenda - these are not forgotten, and they will not be forgotten until they are fully addressed; create real opportunities to address first nations poverty on a scale that matches first nations needs.

.1220

Bill C-79 is the subject of your hearings today, but it is only the tip of the iceberg. In our view, it is simply a diversion to make it look as if this government is actually meeting first nation needs. We must also consider Minister Irwin's desire to make his mark in history by obtaining amendments to the Indian Act regardless of whether or not it serves our interests.

How your committee and this government handles this bill will, however, have a ripple effect.

We need to see some honesty and integrity from this government, qualities that have been sorely lacking to date. We need to be able to give our youth some hope that things will indeed get better. We need to be able to show that as leaders we have been able to come to some understanding of how we are going to relate to each other, and we need to provide an example of accountability and transparency.

The approach taken by this Liberal government with respect to Bill C-79 does not give us reason for optimism on these counts. I can only request that this committee exercise its responsibility and fulfil its public trust honourably by giving this bill a critical and objective review and by allowing first nations every opportunity to speak to these issues as they may choose.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Chief Mercredi.

First, I'd like to acknowledge that we have received the documents that you indicated have been tabled. All will be copied and each and every member of the committee will get copies.

I will turn now to questions.

From my perspective as chair of the committee, I want to make one thing absolutely clear, because there's an indication on page 9, I think, that we are restricted to one week of consultation and that I am pressing for a quick resolution of this legislation. Unfortunately, maybe you are misinformed by someone, because those who were at the meeting remember me saying that I don't care if I stay here until Christmas, I want everyone to have a chance to present their views.

So I want to say this, Chief Mercredi, because I want the position of this chair to be absolutely clear. As a matter of fact, I will even say that we have a two-week break coming up and I'm prepared to spend it in Ottawa or anywhere to deal with this legislation. I want you to be assured that if I am proceeding rapidly there are two reasons. First, that's the way I do my work. Second, there is an indication of elections in the air and I have five bills coming to my committee so I'm pushing to get the job done.

If, after it's done, I am criticized for having unreasonably rushed it, then I will deserve the criticism. For the time being, it must be made very clear that I have no intention of being unreasonable with the time allocation.

Now we will proceed to questions. We have -

Chief Mercredi: May I respond to your comment, Mr. Chairman?

The Chairman: No. There's no need. It's just to comment -

Chief Mercredi: But I will anyway.

The Chairman: We'll proceed to questions.

Chief Mercredi: My response to you is this.

The Chairman: Chief Mercredi, I will proceed to questions -

Chief Mercredi: But I'm responding to your comment, because it's only fair.

Are you saying to me that you're going to go out and listen to people, or are you going to close your mind?

The Chairman: I will proceed to question period with members.

Chief Mercredi: Then I'll respond to what you said.

The Chairman: You will definitely have closing remarks. You will have the time to put in your -

Chief Mercredi: You didn't give our people sufficient notice for these hearings to begin with. Don't give me the impression that you're going to be fair in terms of the process, because the process is not fair to begin with.

.1225

There are people out there who have yet to receive the notice from this committee that you're having hearings. And you allowed less than a week's notice to people advising them of this process and only gave them four days in which you are going to be sitting.

That's the only information I have.

The Chairman: I'm saying that -

Chief Mercredi: You haven't called me to tell me otherwise. You have not written to me otherwise. I have not seen any correspondence to indicate otherwise, so what you are saying to me is news.

The Chairman: Okay. What I'm saying to you is that you have been misinformed and that the work that has -

Chief Mercredi: Then inform us better, because -

The Chairman: Chief Mercredi -

Chief Mercredi: - I'm relying on your correspondence and I'm relying on your information, and -

The Chairman: Chief Mercredi -

Chief Mercredi: - your information is very clear. You don't want to go out and talk to the people. You want to do it on the basis of teleconferencing. That's what we have.

The Chairman: We'll proceed to questions. I've made my position very clear. We will share the remaining time, which is 35 minutes.

Is it reasonable to say five minutes each for the first round? Do you agree? Okay.

[Translation]

Mr. Bachand.

Mr. Bachand (Saint-Jean): I would like to clarify something. I was also somewhat concerned about the consultation. In fact, today I sent a letter to you, as well as to the clerk, and to each member of the committee. I was also concerned about the little time granted the First Nations to react, because they had only been given until Wednesday.

Before the meeting, I spoke to the Chairman, and he told me that mail might arrive late in some remote communities. There are, no doubt, some communities in Canada that have not yet received notice telling them that they can make themselves heard. The chairman then, gave me his assurance that this would be taken into account, and that, even if Wednesday was the deadline to register, if applications were to arrive after that, it would be taken into account, and these people would be listened to.

The Chairman: I think I have to clarify that. At the organization meeting, I said three times that if a committee member, whoever that might be, wanted to invite someone to appear, it would be up to the committee to decide by a majority vote. It's at that time that I said that I was prepared to stay until Christmas.

Personally, I do not influence the committee's decisions in any way. Moreover, I believe that my reputation on that score is well established.

Mr. Bachand: I would now like to clarify something. You will not interfere with the consultation if the majority of committee members does not decide that they have heard enough. Is that indeed what you are saying?

The Chairman: Absolutely. I have always respected majority decisions in the committee.

Mr. Bachand: Agreed. Therefore, I have one vote out of six or seven. I would like us to go all the way with the consultation, as I have already told you, and I hope that the committee members will agree with me.

The presentation by the National Chief is very clear as far as I'm concerned. I have a few questions for him.

I have been watching Minister Irwin for three years. At the beginning, I felt that he was one of the ministers who was most open to the Aboriginal question. During the first two years of his mandate, he travelled a great deal. He told me that he had met 300 or 400 First Nations. He seemed to be a fellow who was filled with good intentions.

Now that he is acting on Bill C-79, you seem to be saying that it's because he wants to make his mark on history. I have a hard time believing that the minister might want to leave his mark simply because he is opposed not only to the First Nations, but also to his own Red Book. He is opposed to the Royal Commission of Inquiry which has tabled a 4,000-page report, in which Mr. Erasmus says that to refuse to change the Indian Act does not represent a solution.

I would like your opinion. I told him the last time he came before us: Mr. Minister, your behaviour is exactly the same as the first Minister of Indian Affairs some 100 years ago, who said: "I know what is good for you and I will decide what is good for you."

I was disappointed in the minister, whom I believed to be more open to Native issues. I would like to hear your reaction on that.

.1230

You also spoke about the Sparrow decision. In order to defend yourself against the imposition of this bill, do you think you will have to go to court citing section 35 of the 1982 Constitution, as well as case law? In the Sparrow decision, it says: when new bills are passed, they must be given a broad interpretation to ensure that they include all Aboriginal rights. It seems to me that this bill does not do that at all. Therefore, do you intend to attack the Act before the courts if the minister and the government decide to pass the bill?

[English]

Chief Mercredi: It's not that the minister wants to make his mark in history but that he wants to do it using ideas that existed in the last century.

To make my point, let me read a provision of Bill C-79. It says:

Whereas the Government of Canada desires, for the benefit of both bands and the Government, that Indian bands have the option of modifying the application of the Indian Act in certain respects in order to increase band council authority for local governance, as an interim measure until such time as self-government agreements are in place, and for other purposes;

These are old ideas. They have been discarded by any modern-thinking politician of the government who has been involved in the constitutional process. We don't talk about ``local government''. This is ancient language, which has found its place in this legislation again. We don't talk about the next provision, which says:

We are more than just language, culture, and traditiion.

The reference to local government is unnecessary, but it's ancient language. It's yesterday's language. It's past history. What the minister is doing is resurrecting old language in contemporary time. It's outdated.

Here's an opinion that's not mine. Here's a legal opinion from a lawyer who is reporting to Chief Phil Fontaine in the province of Manitoba. He says:

Where's the inherent right, which Ron Irwin says comes from the Creator? Where is it? Is it hiding somewhere? No, it's not hiding. He doesn't want it to come out. That's why he has this legislation here: to make sure it never surfaces.

The lawyer says:

He goes on to say about the second preamble I read out:

That is similar to language that was in the Charlottetown Accord.

What we're presented with here in the preamble is old thinking. So our opposition to Irwin is not that he wants to make his mark in history but that he wants to do it at our expense, based on century-old ideas which are outdated and have been discarded by our people.

The Chairman: Mr. Duncan.

.1235

Mr. Duncan (North Island - Powell River): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to go on record as saying I was very unhappy with the communication from this committee about the time lines I forwarded to the bands in my riding, and I expressed that to the bands in my riding. I was away from the office Friday, got it Sunday, sent it out Monday morning, for a Wednesday cut-off. I found that very inappropriate.

We're in an election year. We probably have six weeks or less of Parliament remaining before dissolution. I think this is the worst possible time to legislate or create initiatives of this description.

I've watched the minister in this department at the end of every parliamentary session we've had since we've been here, since 1994, wait until the eleventh hour and then rush legislation, invoking closure and every other time-shortening device. I conjure up that this is happening all over again.

You did mention, Mr. Chair, that we have five bills. We had two bills, the two Manitoba compensation agreements which I was asked to cooperate with, months ago. All they are waiting for is one hour of House time to come before this committee, and we haven't seen either one of them. We had a Nunavut waters bill brought to this committee and it was so flawed it has gone back to the drawing board. It was withdrawn from committee.

I must say I am very frustrated to think in the lead-up to a likely election I'm going to be totally tied up and hostage to a minister's initiative on committee responsibilities because something is being driven by the minister's agenda. I just don't think it's appropriate at all.

Those are my comments.

I would like to ask Grand Chief Mercredi if he is aware of specific comments the minister has made to some of the chiefs which would verify that his intent is to push this through this session.

Chief Mercredi: The minister has said he wants this bill to survive this government. In other words, his timeframe is the term of this government. So it's consistent with what the chairman said: that he has five bills and an election is coming. Although he says he wants to sit until Christmas, I doubt very much he will do that, because his priority will be the election coming and the five bills. I'm reading what he's saying between the lines. He's going to push this through, as chairman of the committee, because that's what the minister wants, and the minister wants this to pass before the election.

The Chairman: Just for the record, I will make the comment that we are speaking for the minister. It will go on record, and I'm not refusing it, but it should be noted in all fairness that if the minister had statements to make, he should have made them and should have been asked about them last week. You may continue in that vein, but it is noted that we are speaking for the minister.

Mr. Duncan: My question really is - and I don't really know if you're the appropriate person to address it to - how you balance the fact that on the one hand the minister states he will respect the independence of the standing committee and on the other hand he assumes he can get this through this Parliament. Given the timeframes, that tells me this standing committee is not independent.

.1240

I've thought that for a long time about all parliamentary committees because of the parliamentary majority. The numbers are there. As Claude mentioned, he's one voice in six. If we all showed up on all sides, the Reform Party and the Bloc would be outnumbered seven to four. That's the way it is. That's my question.

Chief Mercredi: Here's the reason for my wonderment: why is Elijah Harper not here? Also, what about all those members of Parliament who have primarily first nation people as almost the majority of their constituencies? Why aren't those members sitting on the Liberal side? Because they would have to listen to our people.

The discussions in this committee would be more equitable for us if we had members of Parliament on the committee who have a lot of first nations in their constituency, because those members have to listen to them.

I don't see Elijah Harper here, I'm sorry to say.

The Chairman: We will respond to that -

Chief Mercredi: I understood that he was supposed to be here.

And to answer your earlier question about who did Irwin tell specifically, I'm advised by my staff that he spoke to Chief Earl Commanda three weeks ago and said that he wanted a bill to be passed before the election, but we've known all along anyway what his timeframe was because he told us that himself. And we were told by his bureaucrats and his own deputy that they want this bill passed in this session of Parliament. That's not news. We've known that for some time now.

The Chairman: We will respond to your question about member Harper, which is a fair question. I think Mr. Murphy has information.

Mr. Murphy (Annapolis Valley - Hants): Yes. Just for the record, Elijah is at home sick with the flu. His not being here is no reflection on this process at all.

Am I next on the...?

The Chairman: Yes, but I want to make a comment in reference to Mr. Duncan's concerns, which are legitimate.

On page 9 of your presentation you make the statement about ``the minister's promise of extensive public hearings''. Based on that, I'll immediately say that it's not the minister who decides the consultation process for this committee: it's this committee. I want that to be clear. I don't suspect that what you say here isn't true. It probably is. But in all fairness to you, I want to make it clear that it's not the minister who will decide the work of this committee, it's this committee.

Mr. Murphy, we have a total of ten minutes, five minutes each.

Mr. Murphy: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Bachand said that he found your presentation very clear. I have some difficulty with that clarity. Let me express my dissent with your issue that there's no honesty and integrity in this government. I want to tell you from my perspective that I feel I handle myself from an honest point of view, with integrity. I just want to make that clear because I find these quick statements are very difficult for people to hear and I like somebody to refute them.

The other thing I wanted to bring up was the consultation, Chief Mercredi, that you say never really happened. I don't see the clarity that Mr. Bachand sees. I'm trying to figure out who's telling me what, because you're saying that the consultation was really of no account and then I get information that since 1987 something in the vicinity of $15 million has been spent on analysis of the act and so on.

I understand as well that the $15 million includes a figure in the vicinity of $93,000 for funding for the AFN. Then I hear the deputy minister, who was here the other day, talk about a number of issues - and you called it a paper consultation - and I don't need to tell you there are letters, there are meetings that you had with the minister, there are meetings with the deputy minister, there are two appearances by the minister at the AFN assemblies.

.1245

What broke down? Why is there such mistrust, when I see, Chief, that something has been put forward to try to get some consultation with the AFN, but from my perspective your response and your organization's response have not come forward? Could you help me try to understand why I see such flagrantly different positions?

Chief Mercredi: It's a deception. To tie previous efforts by previous governments to examine the Indian Act to these measures by Ron Irwin.... They have nothing to do with them. What created these measures by Ron Irwin is an effort to consult our people by correspondence. He received correspondence, all right: 60 letters. That's what he received. But I've given you 540 communities saying no to that. That's a little more than 60, don't you think?

He's still proceeding on the strength of 40 submissions. But you have to remember these submissions were not based on discussions between the chiefs and the government. That was just sending you a letter on what I would like to see. So I might like to see the term extended. Somebody else might like to see the weak provisions removed. Maybe somebody doesn't like the estate provisions and they want those changed. So we all send our respective letters and that's the end of the matter. That's all we know about it. The next step of the process is the minister saying here's a draft bill; look at it. Where's the consultation?

What you have in front of you is not the first draft that was being considered. Now, it's true the minister came to our sessions. It's true he came to our sessions and I met with him. But that's not consultation. He was called to our assemblies to account for what he was doing. He was challenged by the chiefs over what he was doing and he was called to account. ``Why are you proceeding with these massive changes to 75% of the legislation? Why are you doing this without proper consultation?'' That was the nature of the meetings, not where we sat down across the table with him and said, Ron, why don't we do it this way? Why don't we do it...? There was nothing like that. There was no opportunity for that, because the government did not want to proceed on that basis. They wanted to ram this down our throats. But because the opposition was so strong...it was so strong he had to back down.

What you have there is a modified version of what he originally intended to do. What you have in front of you is a downsized version of the amendments he wanted to make. Even then he could not sell it, not even to the big hitters he likes to identify as supporting him. He could not sell it even to them as amendments to the Indian Act. The only way he could get any progress, if you can call it progress, was to make it optional.

Let me read Phil Fontaine's response - not my response but his response - because the impression he left in the committee here was that Chief Fontaine is supporting him.

Mr. Murphy: My point, sir, was they got no response from you.

Chief Mercredi: Chief Fontaine, he says, negotiated the amendments with him to make it optional and to have the non-derogation clause. He also identified Blaine Favel as the second chief who did it. But I have had resolutions from the chiefs in Saskatchewan as recently as last week rejecting these amendments, rejecting these amendments you're considering right now. We have correspondence here for you to review from Chief Fontaine doing the same, and a legal opinion from his lawyer advising him to reject it en masse, advising that the chiefs in Manitoba should reject it because it's not good legislation.

So where is the support for it? Not even those he thinks are behind him are behind him, because he's acting unilaterally. So where is the consultation? There is no consultation.

The Chairman: Chief Mercredi, are those documents tabled? Do you wish to table them, or are they part of the package?

.1250

Chief Mercredi: They are part of the package.

The Chairman: Mr. Murphy?

Mr. Murphy: I didn't get an answer to my question.

The Chairman: Dr. Patry.

Mr. Patry (Pierrefonds - Dollard): Thank you very much. I have one simple question for Mr. Mercredi.

On page 15 in your statement this morning you said:

You then go on to say:

According to these statements, do you feel this government or any future government should not amend the Indian Act?

Chief Mercredi: I'm saying any legislative action should not be based on the current legislation; we shouldn't try to create a better relationship between ourselves and the Government of Canada by trying to perfect the imperfect instrument called the Indian Act. There is no way of perfecting it. It has damaged our lives so much that no one wants to touch it.

It's not because we want it. We don't love it. It's not our bill of rights. But the Indian Act has been used to suppress our right to govern ourselves. It has been used to define who we are as a people, as human beings. It has been used to suppress our spirituality. It has been used to make sure we don't have lawyers to defend our legal rights to land. It has been used to outlaw, to criminalize, the potlatch. It's a criminal act. The Indian Act is criminal. There is no way you can perfect it, and to try to entice our people into a process to try to perfect that instrument is offensive. If people understood the passion we feel about how our human rights have been violated by the Indian Act they would not engage in a process of building a new relationship based on that imperfect instrument. They wouldn't even dare to sit down with us on that basis.

The other fear we have is this. If you try to change the law based on those old ideas in the Indian Act, you will just get deeper and deeper into that bog. Here's a perfect example. Irwin wants to introduce this amendment:

We are people. We are not a bloody corporation. We are human beings. We don't much care about the right to sue or to be sued. We want to keep our identity as a distinct people. We want to preserve our identity as people with a different culture, with the right of self-determination, people with pre-existing rights to Canada.

What has he done by using old-style relations? Here's a legal opinion that's not mine and not from my lawyer but from a lawyer for the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, and it says about the provision I just read out on the legal identity of the band:

So we are no longer just a band. Irwin now wants to make us into a corporate body.

We don't want to be a corporate body, thank you. We want to preserve our own identity as a distinct people.

.1255

If this legislation goes through, the Liberals are empowering the sovereignists in Quebec, not the first nations. They are providing not only moral but legal ammunition to the sovereignists, the separatists in Quebec, to say that Indian people do not have the inherent right to govern themselves, that their right of self-determination has been circumscribed by the legislation. Is that what you want? Do you want to pass laws that would have the effect of empowering sovereignists in Quebec to argue against our peoples' right of self-determination, and to use your statutes as grounds for denying my people the right of self-determination? If that is what you want, that is what you will get in this bill.

Look at the implications. It's not a simple exercise of a man trying to be part of history. There are serious implications to this bill that go beyond the Indian Act itself and that affect the unity of this country.

Mr. Patry: Thank you.

The Chairman: We have five more minutes. We can ask each member to have a half-minute question and ask Chief Mercredi to encompass his closing remarks with those - or do you wish to proceed to closing remarks?

[Translation]

Mr. Bachand: I will give him my time so that he can...

[English]

The Chairman: Do we agree that we allow the five minutes remaining to Chief Mercredi for closing remarks? There's not enough time to go for a round.

Mr. Hubbard (Miramichi): Mr. Chairman, I have a major point here that I have difficulty with. Everybody gets letters, and we're led to believe that the -

The Chairman: The question is whether or not we do another round. If I allow you to speak, I have to do a round.

Mr. Hubbard: Mr. Chairman, I think we should get some answers in terms of the correspondence with the grand chief and in terms of why the minister said there was no response. I think that's a very important part of this whole exercise.

The Chairman: I understand, but understand my position. If I allow you to have the floor, I have to go a round. If the committee wants to go a round, that means we extend our time and the next witnesses will be delayed. What is the wish of the committee - closing remarks or another round?

An hon. member: Closing remarks.

The Chairman: Closing remarks.

Chief Mercredi, the floor is yours.

Chief Mercredi: The minister did write to me requesting that I consider working with him on amending the Indian Act to extend the term of the chief in council from two to three years. I took that to the executive. We looked at it and asked ourselves why we would want to do that. What's the sense of urgency of amending the Indian Act to extend the term of the chief in council? So we put it aside.

The next initiative of the minister was not to come to me, but to announce to the chiefs in Alberta that he wants to change the Indian Act, and not only in relation to the election of the chief in council. He wanted a broad process to amend it. He didn't come to me for that. He went to this chiefs' gathering in Alberta and he proposed this process, which they didn't respond to.

When no one responded, the minister tried another route: changing the law by correspondence. That's when he wrote directly to the chiefs. The letters he wrote to the chiefs - he sent it to me as well - invited the chiefs to say to him what they want changed in the Indian Act. Since I didn't want anything changed in the Indian Act, I didn't reply. Only sixty people replied and, on the strength of those sixty people, he wants to amend the Indian Act.

So when it became clear to me that they were going to amend it regardless of what the AFN stood for, or regardless of what position we took, I started organizing assemblies - he attended one of them. And that's where the people started making their opposition very clear: We don't like what the minister is doing; we want you to stop him. That's where my mandate to stop him came in - after the fact.

So that's the process. That doesn't satisfy the requirement for consultation in terms of the Sparrow case, but it's not the only concern we have. We are concerned about the content. For example, under the proposed amendments of the minister, he wants to transfer some powers to our councils to manage land.

.1300

The concern of our people is what is that going to do to the crown's fiduciary responsibility to protect the land? How did the fiduciary get created in the first place? It arose because you, as white governments, kept our land. We didn't say to you to keep our land. You took it and you kept it. So you created a trust in both common law and also under the Indian Act's section 53. And what happened when you created that trust? Well, we have about 500 specific claims against the federal government where Indian agents violated that trust and where Indian people started losing their reservations because of the unscrupulous acts of Indian agents. The body of laws has evolved over the years because of actions of negligence by bureaucrats who work for Indian Affairs.

The Indian people are now saying that we still don't have all of our land returned, so what's going to happen to our land if we accept this piece of legislation and we start managing it? Treaty land entitlements are still outstanding. The land promised to us under treaty is still not fully transferred to our people.

Why would we want it to affect the fiduciary responsibility of the crown? We don't know what you're going to do afterwards. Specific claims are outstanding and are not resolved. What will happen to specific claims if this legislation goes through and people adopt it? What will happen to the fiduciary?

Let me read something to you. It's not my opinion, but the opinion of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs' legal counsel:

The people in the communities are asking why would we want to do this. Why would we want our chief in council to put us into this legislation when the very nature of our land is still not settled?

Look at it. Who is empowered under this bill to drag our people into it? The chief in council. A simple majority of the chief in council can drag our people into this bill. And do you know something? They don't even have to call a meeting. They don't even have do have a duly convened meeting as a council to determine whether we should be part of this legislation or not. They can do it by a band council resolution that can be signed independently and without discussion. There is no opportunity whatsoever for the people to discuss the merits of going into this, and once the decision is made by the chief in council, there's no opportunity to get out of it. Once you're in, you're in. There's no way of getting out.

Now, I didn't come here to go through all the specific grievances I have about the contents of the bill itself, because I thought you would be satisfied with the fact that there have been improper consultations, that there was an alternative process available to the minister, and that it was the process used in Bill C-75. He did not do it, so you should send him back to square one. You should tell him that you're not going to pass this bill, that you want him to get back to where he should have been in the first place, and that is to negotiate those changes, not to impose them.

Those are my comments.

The Chairman: Thank you very much. I will make the statement that this bill, having been referred to us, is no longer the minister's bill. It's a bill that belongs to the House of Commons. We have been trusted with the responsibility of addressing the bill and responding to it. But I want it made clear that it is no longer the minister's bill; it belongs to the House of Commons.

Chief Mercredi, I want to thank you very much. This was an excellent presentation. I certainly learned a lot from it, and I'm sure my colleagues have also. As I said during the meeting, if the committee decides that it would like to invite you again, it will be the decision of the committee. I want it to be clear that I will not stifle consultation, okay?

Chief Mercredi: Thank you very much. I'll see you next Christmas.

The Chairman: Thank you.

We'll suspend for two minutes.

.1305

.1313

The Chairman: We will resume deliberations.

In this hour we're honoured and pleased to hear from the new president of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples - and we're pleased to express our congratulations to him - Harry Daniels, with his adviser, Marc LeClair.

Mr. Harry Daniels (President, Congress of Aboriginal Peoples): We have our vice-president, Mr. Frank Palmater, with us as part of the group.

The Chairman: Welcome. The hour is yours. We would appreciate it if you allow some time for questions, but the time belongs to you.

Mr. Daniels: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members. We won't starve you to death. We have a very short presentation.

As you've indicated, I was only elected to this office on Saturday so have not had a great chance to read Bill C-79, although I've taken a cursory look at it. I am somewhat dismayed at some of the things that are included.

I just want to preface my statements by saying that if the AFN complains as a national organization that it has not been consulted adequately in this process, the off-reserve Indians represented by the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples are in much more dire straits, because they have not been consulted at all. We have not been part of the process in any meaningful or direct manner.

.1315

We have three major problems with the legislation at this point. We'd like to reserve judgment on further interventions in this process because, as I say, we haven't had the chance to really analyse it completely.

The Chairman: Let me make a comment that may be of assistance. If, after your presentation, you wish to submit a written presentation to be added to it, it will be tabled and will be considered. I want you to know that.

Mr. Daniels: In response to that, before I make my statements, the problem with that is that we don't have a large staff. I'll be talking to Ron Irwin about whether I can get some funding to get some people just to put this together and to get someone to do a critical analysis of it. We don't need a lot of money. If the door is open for us to further prepare ourselves and make a written statement, we will do so. Thank you very much for your information.

The three major problems we have are as follows: first, the failure of the federal government to consult with off-reserve aboriginal peoples; second, the further encouragement of first nations authority without safeguards for off-reserve aboriginal peoples; and third, legislation that is too narrow in scope.

The first problem we have with the legislation is the failure of the federal government to adequately consult with aboriginal and Indian people off reserve on the proposed changes to the Indian Act. Although Mr. Irwin highlighted a number of consultation processes that preceded the development of the legislation, off-reserve people were left out of the recent consultation process and had only token participation in previous exercises.

The minister admitted to the committee yesterday that the legislation will affect the individual rights of the members of the first nations in the area of estates and wills. We believe it will have impacts on off-reserve aboriginal people in other areas as well.

All of this is to be done by band council resolution. Our problem is that with the exception of a few reserves, off-reserve aboriginal people do not have the right to vote in the election process.

And this is not included in our paper, but tonight in Regina there is a meeting of the off-reserve Indian people of the Pasqua Indian Reserve who do not have the right to vote on the Pasqua Reserve. Many of them are my cousins and relations, and they outnumber the voting members living on the reserve. I find that to be something of a craziness in this world: people who have a vested interest in a reserve and a prior interest in a reserve and an Indian band cannot vote, but that is taking place in Saskatchewan right now even as we speak. That meeting is tonight at seven o'clock, in the Friendship Centre, I believe.

The recent Batchewana case, the Corbière case, where the government says that the decision was that Indians off reserve can't vote, further restricts the ability of Indian people to be involved in the process. There is the Twinn case going on, where, for whatever reasons, the Indians on the reserve are fighting against their people coming back to the reserve.

Further, what guarantee do we have that the interests of our constituents will be adequately safeguarded? We entered into a political accord that committed the government to consult with us on a number of matters set out in the red book, yet three years after the fact they have not done so.

That document is at the end of our presentation, Mr. Chair. In section 1.0 it describes a consultation process and outlines it. Further in that process, in section 2.0, is the priority agenda, which I won't bore you with today. You can read it at your leisure. I want this political accord to be tabled with the report.

This was a commitment given three years ago so that not only the off-reserve Indians would be consulted, but Métis people who are going to take advantage of Bill C-31 to regain Indian status would be consulted as well. Those kinds of things have to be thought about.

.1320

The fact of the matter is that there have been no consultations with off-reserve aboriginal people leading up to this bill. Quite frankly, we believe the federal government has a legal and moral duty to consult with the people we represent. As individual members of Parliament and the committee as a whole, you must exercise your constitutional responsibilities and satisfy yourselves that adequate consultations have been undertaken.

Second, further entrenchment of first nations authority without safeguards for off-reserve aboriginal people.

The second problem we see with the legislation relates to a larger problem with the Indian Act and the Department of Indian Affairs and that is the failure of the department to take full responsibility for all status and other aboriginal people. When we say ``other aboriginal people'', they are those people, as I pointed out just moments ago, those Indians, who have been denied status or had their status taken away and who are going to use the vehicle of Bill C-31 to regain that status. They have not been consulted.

There are 4,000 Indians who have identified themselves as Métis as well. In the last election there were between 60,000 and 70,000 Métis people who took treaty because of their Indian lineage and half of them were Métis, Indians and non-status Indians. Yet another 60,000 were left out of the process.

The federal government has skirted its responsibility for off-reserve aboriginal people by wrapping all its program and policy initiatives around first nations initiatives, this bill being the latest example of the federal government's narrowing of its responsibility. This is not a recent phenomenon. In 1850 there was a much larger and more generous and more inclusive definition of who is an Indian. It has become more restrictive over time to diminish the size of what the Indian nations really are, and to be exclusionary.

In 1985 there was a failed attempt in Bill C-31 in which they tried to rectify that. They again developed a racist document which says you can only be an Indian for so long and then it cuts off. Why don't they say it to white people in this country? They are still Scottish after being here for 400 years. Are they not Canadians? There are more Gaelic-speaking people in Nova Scotia than there are in Scotland, and they can retain their identity and culture. But no, you must pass a bill called Bill C-31 that says, oh...and they give them numbers. If the number is six or five you're still an Indian, but if it's two-sixths you're not an Indian. That's craziness.

Anyway, we're here to talk about this bill, and it has those implications too.

We do not want to see a further entrenchment of this myopic and self-serving policy - self-serving for the government in that it diminishes the size of the Indian nations and therefore the responsibility of government. Many provisions of this bill concern us because of the potential increased control that bands will have in allocating lands, and more importantly, withholding lands from off-reserve people.

We have had over ten years of experience under Bill C-31, and many people who have taken Bill C-31 continue to suffer discrimination at the hands of elected band councils. Safeguards must be put in place to ensure equitable access for off-reserve status Indians and treaty Indians.

Our recent annual general meeting dealt with this issue and adopted the attached resolution. That's to be read at your leisure. They are talking directly about Bill C-31.

As you can see, we are still dealing with the failures of previous changes to the Indian Act. The legislation is too narrow in scope. Instead of dealing with the problem of the very existence of the Indian Act and all its discriminatory provisions, it merely tinkers here and there.

We believe, as does the royal commission, that fundamental changes are required. We urge the committee to make this recommendation part of its report to Parliament. Piecemeal approaches have not worked in the past and there is no reason to believe they will work at this time. It is time to get serious about change. Your committee should tell the government to get on with it.

.1325

I was going to give a couple of observations, very quickly. I'm not here to dissect this now, but these jumped off the page at me.

On page 12, proposed subsection 75.(1), on eligibility: you have to live in a band or be an elector from a band to run for chief or councillor. What this says to me, in a racist way, is you're only an Indian as long as you stay on a reserve, and you have rights as an Indian only as long as you stay on a reserve. To me this is totally racist, and it can only be interpreted that way. It is exclusionary and does not speak to good government.

What about other people who should be eligible for treaty but were left out of treaty for historical reasons? In the last census in Ontario, in 1991, 42% of them said they were treaty or status Indians. These are the aboriginal people, the 100% collectivity of aboriginal people. Again, 42% were status Indians, 8% were Métis, 50% were non-status Indians. I don't know how you can be a ``non-status'' anything, yet this term was used in the census paper.

It's our view that either you're an Indian or you're not. We don't have a caste system in this country, or I hope we don't; or else we're disguising the caste system under the guise of.... People now hide behind the Constitution, very conveniently. We're going to recognize only those people who are in the Constitution: the Indians, the Inuit, and the Métis. But even the Métis - and I'm a Métis person speaking on behalf of these Indians now - are being pushed off the table because there is no federal responsibility.

The Inuit are being dealt with through Nunavut, and the treaty Indians.... They are fractioning them. If you're off reserve you are no longer an Indian. You have no say in the process. You can't vote on the reserve. So you are developing a little caste system here. Some Indians are better because they have a number and some Indians are better with a number on reserve than they are off reserve. Those Indians who don't have a number are a little worse off than those. Then there are the Métis and so on.

At a meeting in Toronto recently one person said you're creating a very dysfunctional family here. It's not our fault, it's yours. You might say, I'm sitting here as chairman, it's not my fault. Yet if you perpetuate this kind of system by putting these kinds of further changes into the Indian Act, following on Bill C-31, then your problem is my problem. You have the problem of your father and their grandfathers, those immigrants who first came here to put down the Indian people of this country, and we as descendants of those Indians are suffering. If this committee does not want to deal with it, if this government does not want to deal with it, successive governments or previous governments, then something is totally wrong in this whole scenario.

If we're going to have a consultative process here, and in the broadest and most generous terms, then all people who are affected by this must be consulted. It is not only the constituents of the AFN who live on reserve. It is the constituents of the AFN as well as people who live off reserve, for whatever reasons, socio-economic or whatever. It is also the people we represent, who do not have treaty status but are Indians nonetheless. It is also those people we represent who are going to use the vehicle of Bill C-31 to regain their status. They must be consulted.

And we are the larger population. Only 25% of Indians who are treaty live on reserve in this country. The rest live off reserve.

If your consultative process is to be inclusive, it must include all people. The sad reality of this country is that you are selective in who you deal with.

Oh, yes. You shake your head - not you.

The Chairman: You mean in the consultative process?

Mr. Daniels: In the consultative process. I'm using the broad, general view the way my uncle used to. He said le gouvernement and he meant everybody in the government and all those people who were part of that, on either side of the House. He would say le gouvernement is speaking. He said that's everybody over there. He didn't identify anybody especially by party or whatever.

.1330

Anyway, we want to be consulted and to represent adequately and fairly those people we are elected to represent and to see that justice is done and seen to be done.

Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Bachand.

Mr. Bachand: You will need your translation device.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniels: Why?

Mr. Bachand: Your French is excellent, at least what I have heard so far. I agree with you when you say that we will have to consult with the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, that is the off-reserve Aboriginal people. However, there will be some difficulty in consulting the off-reserve Aboriginal people, because I believe that your structure is identical to that of the provinces.

By the way, I am a great friend of the Alliance autochtone du Québec, which, I believe, is a member of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. How would you suggest that the consultation proceed? For example, could we ask your people from each province to appear before the committee through a video conference, and to tell us what problems they see arising out of the bill that is before us?

In short, can you give us an idea of the way in which your structure operates? I don't believe you have communities like those of the First Nations. We can't say that we will visit a given reserve. It is rather a national grouping for all of Canada, and there are also provincial groupings. How would you see this consultation?

[English]

Mr. Daniels: It's a national problem in that in most of the organizations we represent people who live off reserve. As a matter of fact, one Blackfoot reserve wanted to join the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples because they thought the AFN wasn't doing enough work for them. So it's a national problem.

I'm not here to fight with anybody. I just want to say the process has evolved to where it is now. We're at the committee stage and we're doing all kinds of things. There has been no consultation with our people as between ourselves and those we represent in the provinces, because we don't have the facilities to do so. We don't have the money or the human resources to do it.

Mr. Marc LeClair (Adviser, Congress of Aboriginal Peoples): One of the questions that dog the committee is how does the committee satisfy itself that there has been adequate consultation on any legislation affecting aboriginal people, given the fact that the Supreme Court in Sparrow, as was said this morning by Chief Mercredi, said when we make some changes that have the potential to impact on aboriginal rights there should be some prior consultation? In that case it was a fishery. I can't think of anything that's more direct than this particular piece of legislation.

I can sense there's some frustration in the committee. You're told by one side that there has been consultation and you get the rattling off of the chronology of all the things that preceded this legislation - it's a long history; everyone knows that - and then on the other side you get, well, there isn't that consultation. Chief Mercredi was pretty animated about that. We're telling you there was none, preceding the bill.

Our frustration is that we've been working with the deputy minister on getting some consultation funding, but it has dragged on and on. We got a letter last week: the cheque's in the mail. Actually, I'm told the cheque is not even in the mail.

So you're caught between a rock and a hard spot on this. But I think the committee has a responsibility to satisfy itself that there has been adequate consultation with affected stakeholders. In our case it's not a question of taking our word for it. I don't think even the department would come forward and say there has been adequate consultation, because there just hasn't.

.1335

So it comes to the committee - back to the question. We can explore a number of options with the committee as to how it would like to satisfy itself on consultation when something has proceeded this far, but our problem is that the train left the station so long ago and we're still on the platform. Now it's come here and it seems like it's come full circle.

And I don't think that's fair. I don't think it's fair and I think the committee ought to at least say something in its report about the matter.

Why should you come here and listen to group after group say that they haven't been talked to and that there have been no consultations? I think the committee has an obligation to set some sort of benchmark as to what it needs to see before it's prepared to look at legislation or else it has an obligation to amend its consultation procedures.

We know that we're very close to a federal election now. You have your legislative timetable and everybody knows that. Still, some lessons should be learned from this process. I urge the committee to take this representation under advisement and address it.

The Chairman: I'll just make a comment. I think consultation needs to be defined, because we get pages of meetings and letters, and we have face-to-face debates, and then we hear from others who say that yes, we did meet with them, but it was not a consultation. I'm not knocking one or the other, but we need to define consultation.

Another thing is that we have people appearing today who are saying they just got elected and haven't had much time to look at the bill. The bill was tabled on December 12, 1996. I've been receiving mail since October. We didn't decide to do this last week.

So we have to define consultation, but that's not our job. Our job is to assure ourselves that we as a committee are doing just consultation, that we're going to try that -

Mr. Daniels: Mr. Chairman, if you're going to substantively change the lives of the Indian people of this country, I would like the same amount of money and the same kind of attention that you give to the separatists in Quebec -

The Chairman: We don't give them money to -

Mr. Daniels: They have a whole government. And the government's loyal opposition is a bunch of separatists who are fighting against.... The government's loyal opposition is supposed to be loyal to the Queen, and I don't want to speak to that. But here's the thing: if you're going to pay that much attention over those many years to the two solitudes in Canada, remember that there's a third solitude here.

To us, consultation means talking to most of our people and getting - in a fair way and through a fair representation - their views on the subject.

If you're going to put the kind of money that you did into Meech Lake, into Charlottetown and into the distinct society for one segment of Canada that wants to break up Canada, that wants to leave this country, yet you want to make substantive changes to the lives of the Indian people of this country and you say ``Oh, we tabled this in December and we're going to push it through by the end of March'' - not in my lifetime! Not if I or the people we represent have something to say about it. You cannot play with the future of people without adequately - and I mean adequately in its most generous and broadest terms - seeing that all the people who are affected or who will be affected have a chance to discuss this. That kind of consultation has to take place in each community if necessary.

You cannot substantively change legislation that is going to affect a whole nation of people or that will affect different nations of people in different ways. Every nuance must be investigated. What does it really mean? What does this terminology in the act really mean? How is it going to affect people down the road? That's what consultation is all about. It doesn't only mean appearing before these little committees.

And I don't mean to belittle this committee by saying it's a little committee, because you obviously have a lot of power. You'll make some recommendations from here. But you still haven't gone to our communities in any substantive way that I can see.

.1340

And it's not a lame excuse when I say I'm coming here with only three days to read this paper. I read that in two minutes and saw it was totally inadequate. Our whole assembly of 200 delegates said this was inadequate and they weren't consulted; and these people at the provincial level represent the people we represent nationally.

So the consultation process is far from complete. In fact, it's totally incomplete.

Mr. LeClair: May I just respond to the statement you made about what the committee has to do to satisfy itself and - correct if I'm wrong, please - that the committee's responsibility is to make sure it hears....

I think the committee, as a representative of Parliament, has a much greater obligation than that, sir, and the courts have said so. They have said Parliament must ensure that where there's an impact on aboriginal or treaty rights there must at least be consultation. This is an important conduit of the consultation process, but it's not all. It's not all.

It seems to me your obligation to Parliament and to the Indian people of this country is to ensure consultations have taken place not just at the last minute, to satisfy yourselves that the Indian people of this country have been consulted properly. We're here telling you the off-reserve Indians have not been consulted properly.

If you have any findings, that is a very important finding. If you don't want to do anything about it now, for whatever legislative or political reasons, you still have to identify that as a finding, because that's critical to the future relations of this committee and the Indian and aboriginal people of the country.

I don't think it's just ``okay, well, we'll just do our part; I don't know if anything has been done before us or since.'' I think that's an abdication of responsibility.

The Chairman: I will mention that as chair of this committee I have sent a memo to all MPs on all sides of the House to assure themselves that their constituents are made very aware of what the proceedings are and the opportunities to present. I have two first nations communities in my riding and they have been advised and they both want to present. So we make the attempt to do as fair a job as we can, as a committee.

The stories of the past we hear with compassion. We have a job to do on a bill, and that's what we're going to do.

Mr. Duncan, I apologize, I've been holding up your time. You're next.

Mr. Duncan: I don't have a lot to say. I've heard your presentation. I notice you're talking about the election process and how off-reserve aboriginal people really don't have a right to vote. Is some of that not resolved now with the Batchewana decision and what flows from that, or has that really not been a fix at all?

Mr. Daniels: No, it's resolved in that the people off reserve can vote.

Mr. Duncan: They actually won the -

Mr. Daniels: Yes, they won it. But it's under appeal.

Mr. Duncan: It's under appeal, yes.

Mr. Daniels: You see, everybody in this country is fighting against the off-reserve people so they won't have any word - not all of them, not all Indians or all governments, but....

A classic example is that in the Rama court case - this is the gambling thing - the Métis and non-status Indians went and said they have just as many rights as treaty Indians, yet the status Indians, the Union of Ontario Indians, went to court against us, with the province, to say we have no rights. How do you expect them to protect the rights of the off-reserve people in this document, rights the government doesn't really want to protect, yet we have an Indian organization in Ontario saying the off-reserve Indians and the Indians referred to as non-status don't have those kinds of rights either?

This is a totally inadequate piece of legislation. And it becomes restrictive. It becomes restrictive - more restrictive and more reserve-based.

.1345

Mr. Duncan: This whole issue you brought up about classes of Indians, though - this is going to be a never-ending argument. As long as status or some other classification carries with it what is perceived to be, or presumed to be, or assumed to be, a monetary value, there will be constant aggravation and adjudication and so on with people trying to reclassify themselves and get that reclassification government-certified. This is problematical for our society and I see this as being a very big problem and something we should be trying to move away from.

You mentioned the Gaelic-speakers in Scotland, for example. If I declare myself Scottish, nobody is going to argue with me, because there's nothing to argue about. But if I want to declare myself to be an Indian, then I have to prove it. Why do I have to prove it? Because it presumably has some value.

I think we ought to think about where we are headed if we're constantly asking the government somehow to legitimize us and classify us and put us into some pigeon-hole; and a lot of this conversation, a lot of your paper, does revolve around that whole concept. I know I may not be going to the root of where you wanted to go and maybe it has not much to do with Bill C-79, but I thought it was worth bringing up.

Mr. Daniels: I don't think there's a dollar value on it, but certainly there are certain benefits people will derive from being an Indian or an Inuit or a Métis in this country. The central issue here is that over time government has attempted to divest itself of the responsibility for aboriginal people as much as possible, by legislation and by treaty and by whatever means it can, to diminish the size of the fiduciary responsibility it has for aboriginal people in Canada, and it does it under the guise of doing for on-reserve and not for off-reserve and for treaty Indians and not for Métis. There's a whole litany. If we had been consulted over time this would not have happened.

The Chairman: Mr. Hubbard.

Mr. Hubbard: Mr. Daniels, about the present Indian Act, it's my understanding that your group is also very unhappy with that type of legislation. Is that correct?

Mr. Daniels: With the Bill C-31 changes?

Mr. Hubbard: Including the Bill C-31 changes.

Mr. Daniels: Including up until Bill C-31, yes.

Mr. Hubbard: And even after that, you as a group are not very happy with the Indian Act as it exists at present.

Mr. Daniels: No.

Mr. Hubbard: And you would like to see major changes in it.

Mr. Daniels: We would like to be able to consult and take an in-depth look at it, because a lot of our people are not happy with.... That is, the off-reserve people we represent. I'm talking about off-reserve Indians, not non-status Indians or Métis as they are designated but those off-reserve Indians who are affected. Those people who may be in the process of regaining their status through the Bill C-31 process are not satisfied with it. In its attempt to deal with the racist parts of it, the exclusionary parts such as Bill C-31, section 109, enfranchisement...they attempted to deal with that but then instilled more racism into it by saying you're an Indian for only so long in your lineage.

This one here now becomes even more on-reserve oriented or focused. They can even sell land now - sell the reserve, if they want. You try to save yourself in the beginning by saying ``nothing in the Indian Act, applied in accordnace with this Act, shall be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from''.

.1350

Mr. Hubbard: I'm trying to bring out a point here.

Mr. Daniels: Okay, maybe I'm missing the point.

Mr. Hubbard: The point I'm trying to make is that under present legislation.... This morning, Grand Chief Mercredi indicated a quotation from Mr. Harper, who is a member of this committee. He tended to depict the present system of the Indian Act, with its attitude of having first nations on reserve, almost as what I think he called ``a penitentiary'', a cage in which people are kept under the economic benefits of the present act. There is no incentive to try to expand the horizons and to enable people who leave reserves to have some of the same benefits and some of the same priorities, in terms of our government, as the people who live on the reserve. I think that's the point you're trying to make.

Is this the way you see the present act? Do you believe changes have to be made to it to make this whole concept of relationships among the various peoples of this country, in terms of aboriginals and the others in Canada, more acceptable to everyone in terms of our culture and our political systems?

Mr. Daniels: The Indian Act, as it exists, is something I would not like to live under. It has to be more generous to the Indian people and give them more control over their lives, certainly. But at the same time, it shouldn't help to divest the federal government of its responsibility.

The dissatisfaction people feel is that they can only do certain things if they're on reserve and certain things if they're off reserve. The whole control factor built into this is not one that satisfies all Indian people. But I'm not personally affected by this. I'm only the elected person who speaks on their behalf right now.

Mr. Hubbard: Do you agree with Mr. Harper's definition of the present system, that the reserve system is a penitentiary or a cage in which people are kept?

Mr. Daniels: Certainly. It's like being kept in jail. Until the 1940s, you had to get a pass from the Indian agent to get off the reserve. They tried to do these kinds of.... All they're doing is saying that you're an Indian only as long as you're on reserve, and that these certain rules only apply to all of these people. But maybe I'm missing your point.

Mr. Hubbard: In terms of your presentation, we have various things this committee might do. The grand chief is saying that we should pack our bags today and go home, that we should forget about the bill that has been sent to us by the House, because his people - and he supposedly represents about 600 first nations across this country - think things should be forgotten about. The minister has said to this committee that there are some changes here that may improve the present situation. As a committee we look at those changes. But then, of course, there's another avenue. Eventually, maybe some other minister may come back with a whole new concept.

What is your position in terms of what should happen?

Mr. Daniels: One section in here - and I just want to read it to you - says ``Her Majesty is relieved of any liability in respect of the application'' of these things. So in the one place, you say you're not going to abrogate certain rights. But then, at the end, if you do so through being able to sell land and stuff, the Queen is going to be relieved of all responsibilities. What should happen? I didn't hear all of Ovide's presentation, nor did I get a chance to read it, but if the on-reserve people are saying to pack this up and go home, then I don't know what the off-reserve people are going to tell you to do. Maybe you should.

Mr. LeClair: Can I just try that one?

The Chairman: Please do.

Mr. LeClair: Mr. Duncan had mentioned the Batchewana case, in which some off-reserve people had sought to become electors and participate in band elections. I think it was the Supreme Court of Ontario that said the denial of the right to vote was a denial of their equality rights, in effect. Of course the crown has appealed.

.1355

Now we look at your electoral provisions in here. Let's just say for the sake of argument that it goes to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court says you're right; this is a denial of equality rights. What have you done in this bill to change it? You haven't done anything to change it.

You've said in the bill that you're going to change the Order in Council. Instead of an Order in Council, it's the minister who will be able to appeal the election. Then in proposed section 80.2 you say the crown will be relieved of any liability with regard to the minister's decision. So we're saying what, the minister's going to be absolved of any responsibility for breaching the equality rights of Indians?

This bill doesn't deal with that problem, and if you're dealing with elections, the interests we represent are saying to you that needs to be changed, whether it's the people in Regina who are meeting tonight or the Batchewana. The elections provisions are important provisions, because the reality is how are you going to change this?

What's wrong with the Indian Act? The Indian Act and the department, with its narrow focus both fiscally and policy-wise on reserve.... That's the issue we have, and this bill just continues to put the blinders on, saying ``Here are the limits of our responsibilities''. We say that's wrong and we don't want to go along with it.

The Chairman: Mr. Finlay.

Mr. Finlay (Oxford): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to reply.

Part of the problem here, Chief Daniels, is that you're quoting from something the Grand Chief presented us with, which doesn't happen to be accurate. It doesn't happen to be the intention of the minister and it doesn't happen to be the intention of this committee.

Marc has just said Her Majesty is getting out of something. Her Majesty is getting out of nothing. Proposed section 80.2 deals with the electoral provisions for a band on its reserve - how the chief is elected and the number of electoral sections. The provision for relieving Her Majesty of any liability is necessary because the minister has no control over the band's decision. The decision has been given to the bands.

Chief Daniels, you said you want more control over the lives of your people and you want more control over your own life, I take it. Is that why you left the reserve? Is that why 50% of non-status Indians live off the reserve?

You pooh-pooh the matter of bloodlines, but that's very important. I imagine there are people who probably could claim to be Indian because they have an Indian ancestor but have more blood from perhaps Scottish, English, or French ancestry than Indian. I don't pretend to know how to solve that problem, but this act deals with taking some of the most paternalistic provisions out of the hands of the minister and the Governor in Council and giving empowerment and more control to Indian nations.

Under Bill C-31, I understand about 100,000 Indians have regained their status but not their band membership. Who is preventing them from having band membership? Who decides on band membership, Chief Daniels?

Mr. Daniels: Number one, I'm not a chief; I'm the president of CAP.

In some instances it's decided by the band and in some instances, if they don't have a band membership code, the government does or the status quo remains.

If you say there's more empowerment for people, you're right, on reserve, but in Regina tonight there will be over 100 Indians who live off reserve and about 65 who live on reserve who can vote for chief. I'm using numbers now. There's a bigger proportion of those people living off reserve in the city of Regina who have nothing to say about what goes on in the Pasqua Reserve. They can't vote on that reserve.

Mr. Finlay: Do they have a vote in the city of Regina, Chief?

Mr. Daniels: To do what?

Mr. Finlay: Do they have a vote for their councillors in the city of Regina, for their aldermen, for their mayor?

.1400

Mr. Daniels: That is not the point. The point is that they're members of the reserve. Wherever they go, they should have land rights and all of the rights that Treaty 4 recognized. You're abrogating their mobility rights in this country by saying they cannot leave that reserve and be an Indian.

Mr. Finlay: That's not what Bill C-31 says.

Mr. Daniels: You're missing the point. Whether they can vote in the city or not is not relevant here. You're talking about empowerment through proposed subsection 75(1) or whatever it is. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it says that the person who runs for chief must be an elector or must be from the band council. A lot of these people who live in the cities are not electors and they aren't band councillors.

Mr. Finlay: I understand that.

Mr. Daniels: Are you telling me that the rights of the Indian people are not transportable?

A voice: That's what he said.

Mr. Daniels: Then you're telling me that if you go to Regina you're no longer an Indian.

Mr. Finlay: I said no such thing.

Mr. Daniels: That's a totally racist notion. You're saying they're not Indians any more because they live in Regina, Winnipeg, Toronto, Thunder Bay, Sudbury, Vancouver or Halifax.

It does say that!

The Chairman: I think I'll bring order to the meeting. The question was -

Mr. Daniels: And if we were consulted -

Voices: Oh, oh!

The Chairman: I'll take control of the meeting.

Excuse me for a moment. I think we got carried away by a question that has not been answered. I will answer it: yes, they can vote in municipal and school elections.

That was a simple question. That is fair. Now, if you choose to elaborate on it, I will let you, but I have to make it clear that I don't think I should allow witnesses to put words into the mouths of committee members.

Mr. Daniels: I can appreciate that. Thank you very much. I stand corrected.

The Chairman: The intention wasn't to correct you. It was to bring order back to the meeting.

Do you wish to continue, Mr. Finlay?

I understand Mr. Duncan wishes to have the floor.

Mr. Finlay: I'll allow Mr. Junkin -

The Chairman: Mr. Duncan.

Mr. Duncan: I thought I'd heard it differently, but that's okay.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Duncan: Did you not say Mr. Junkin?

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Duncan: Okay.

I think we're having an important debate here. Do you vote by residency or do you vote by membership? That's what this debate is all about, that's what the court case is all about and that's what all the fuss is all about.

If you vote by residency, you have people living on reserve and we have all the statistics that say off-reserve people are economically, socially and educationally better off. We talked about the Indian Act being a cage. We talked about the reserves being a cage. By voting by residency, you're actually - in a sense - placing an impediment in the way of people as far as improving their lot in life goes, because all of the statistics demonstrate that you're better off in all of those ways if you're not on a reserve. Statistics Canada has done the studies. So that's what's on one side of the ledger.

On the other side of the ledger, if you do it by membership, you may have many bands where the off-reserve membership is way larger than the on-reserve membership. They're absentees and they can run the show.

So this is not a simple question. It's a very difficult one. I think the point was that the Supreme Court is making decisions and Bill C-79, from my reading of it, absolves the minister of any responsibility for whatever mess the Indian Act creates. He has responsibility under the existing act. Under the modified act, his responsibility is removed and that's not a very good clarification. Do you concur?

Mr. Daniels: Yes.

Mr. Duncan: I just wanted to try to bring some clarity to this.

Mr. Daniels: And there's no guarantee of equality under the existing system or under the proposed system.

.1405

The Chairman: I want to mention that the process of consultation identifies issues such as the one you just have identified. I know when we have our debate on the bill itself, after consultation, all these issues will be brought up. I'm sure Mr. Duncan will bring up this one, and others. So the process of consultation is working. It's working, and it's working now.

Mr. Daniels: In fact you're circumscribing the rights of Indians with the reserve boundary.

The Chairman: That has been put on record, there's no doubt about that.

Mr. Murphy: Is it always so? I have a reserve in my area where people who have off-reserve status vote on the reserve. So is this a selective thing?

Mr. Daniels: Some bands have their own election code such that they can do that. But if I might just -

Mr. Murphy: The bands can do that. They can set up that system of off-reserve.... Why isn't that done universally, to allow the inequity I see, what you're talking about in Calgary or wherever it was -

Mr. Daniels: Regina.

Mr. Murphy: - Regina, sorry - that's an inequity. They are status. All are status, but some live on and off. Why wouldn't the band in Regina allow the off-reserve people...? I'm just trying to get a handle on that. Why are some more equal than others?

Mr. Daniels: It comes down to economics. Some of the reasons people leave reserves are that there may not be enough money or resources to take care of the on-reserve population. They are forced out for socio-economic reasons. What happens there is now if the band controls whatever comes in there, such as secondary education, housing, any health benefits on-reserve, they are left there and controlled there. A lot of people who leave the reserve, because they are seen to be not on reserve, cannot access a secondary education as freely as they could if they were in the band. The band sees that they want things - and so they should - such as housing because they have an infrastructure to build up to take care of their people. But then what this bill does, and what other bills are doing, is to try to put all the control back on the reserve, and only a very small population is being served in Canada.

It's a much broader issue, sir. What you have to talk about is more control. How does that happen? How do we take care of all those Indian people, or how do we respect the rights that were garnered through treaty and through constitutional rights and the aboriginal rights of the people prior to first contact? That has to be done.

How do we effect that? I don't have a magical answer. But there certainly has to be a greater sharing of resources for aboriginal people in this country. I'm talking about Indians, Métis people, and those Indians who live off-reserve and those Indians who don't have treaty, and everybody else included.

It's not an easy task this committee and the people concerned with this process are asked to deal with. That's why I stated to the chairman earlier that if indeed we are going to make substantive changes in the lives of Indian people....

When did this consultative process start? Last year? I don't think that's long enough. I respect the views of Mr. Mercredi. I've known him for many years. He's a fine leader. If he says it's inadequate for his people who live on reserve, then I want to tell you it's more than inadequate for the people who live off reserve. I support Mr. Mercredi.

The Chairman: Before we go on, the question government maybe has to ask itself, and we have to do it now, is this. As we're heading towards self-governance, should a government force reserves to recognize off-reserve people, or should the government force reserves not to recognize, or should government say to reserves, you make the decision, if we're in fact heading toward self-governance? That's a debate I'm sure will take place.

.1410

Committee members, do you wish to extend? We'll need five minutes for closing remarks.

Mr. Finlay, briefly, please.

Mr. Finlay: I will be brief, Mr. Chairman.

One of the troubles with our conversations this morning is that we continually mix apples and oranges. I agree very much, President Daniels, that the whole matter has to be addressed. That's why we had a royal commission to look at aboriginal people for five years. I haven't read all six volumes. I don't suppose you have. I'm not even sure that Grand Chief Mercredi has done that.

Mr. Daniels: I lived all six volumes.

Mr. Finlay: A lot of other people worked on it, but we are trying to gain the understanding of that.

This bill is not talking about the inherent right or those things that the commission dealt with; it is talking about some changes that have been proposed for the last 47 years to remove some of the most paternalistic, nit-picking things in the Indian Act. That's what it's about.

I have no difficulty with you saying that we need a method, consultation, etc. That's in this report. There are also some things in this report that nobody's mentioned. I don't want to bring them up now because the chair won't give me time.

We are dealing with this bill. That's what we're going to deal with. We're not dealing with somebody's implied extension.

The chief brought us legal opinions. There are legal opinions on every side of every matter, as you well know. We have a way of doing that through the courts. We're not going to do that.

We're dealing with some things that may empower Indian people. Now you tell us it'll only empower those on the reserve. Fine, but then that's partly your problem, not only our problem, as the chairman said.

The Chairman: It's everybody's problem.

Now, President Daniels, we'll invite you to make closing remarks.

Mr. Daniels: If I appeared cavalier at times, sir, I apologize. I didn't mean to do that. But I did live all those six volumes.

I know you're going to be looking through a lot of legislation and pieces of paper as they affect the aboriginal or Indian people of this country. We'd be glad to work with you in any way we could to make a quality contribution to this exercise. I hope it's not only an exercise.

I would encourage you to listen to the words of Elijah Harper and Ovide Mercredi, for whom I have the greatest respect.

If the consultative process is flawed and if this piece of paper should be thrown on the floor, dusted off, picked up and gone over again, then I think that should be done. Mr. Chairman, I believe we do not want to see another committee like this or another bill of the government result in the fracturing of the Indian nations of this country.

Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thank you.

The meeting is adjourned.

Return to Committee Home Page

;