EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, March 11, 1997

.1329

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.)): Order. We are starting late because the first presenter, Ray Hance, from the Tsilhqot'in National Government, no-showed. We have before us Mr. Joe Bartleman, from the Tsartlip Village Council, who has agreed to start ten minutes early. We really appreciate that.

.1330

Mr. Bartleman, the committee has made a decision that the presentations would each be forty minutes long. The forty minutes belong to you. You may use it however you wish.

We found that much of yesterday's testimony did not relate to the bill.

This committee has been entrusted with the perusal of Bill C-79. Anything that you say will be allowed. There's no problem with that. You use the time in the way you want, but I must remind you that whatever is pertinent to the bill is what will be considered during deliberations by committee members. I would appreciate it if you allow some time for members to question you.

Mr. Bartleman, thank you for being here. We look forward to your presentation. You may start when you're ready.

Mr. Joe Bartleman (Councillor, Tsartlip Band Council): My presentation will only be about five minutes long. As I said earlier, I didn't have time to really prepare.

First of all, I'd like to explain who I am. I'm a councilman for the Tsartlip village on Vancouver Island. I am a descendant of the North Saanich Douglas Treaty of 1852. Some of what I have to say is going to pertain to the treaty and the rights affiliated with it.

After going over Bill C-79 and attending all the latest meetings about it, I have a lot of problems with it, but I won't be addressing them all today.

I feel that Bill C-79 is opening the doors to things my people are really not prepared for. We Saanich people are against the whole B.C. treaty process because we have a treaty that's 150 years old and still not implemented. In these changes I do not see room for implementation of the treaty, and we feel that is a must because it's been an ongoing issue for 150 years.

We feel that the 75 amendments to the Indian Act are wrong from the start. We believe Canada is ducking out of its fiduciary and treaty obligations. These amendments give the council more powers to exercise, without the consent of its people, and that's a major issue. As I see it, the council could almost function without the majority of the band.

From what I've been told personally, the people in the villages involved in the changes are not really aware of this. We believe that anything of this nature should go to a referendum within the council as well as to a national vote of all the chiefs across Canada. It's been stated at our community meetings that this is just opening doors and that it's the same old thing as the white paper policy of 1969.

We believe the majority of the bands pushing for these changes or amendments really have nothing to lose because of leased properties and other developments.

We're kind of losing the picture of our home ground and the grass roots of the whole thing. The people are really not as familiar with C-79 as the councils are, and the councils are not talking to their people and getting permission to even ask for amendments like this.

Another concern is that the amendments go hand in hand with the new FTA agreements, which we do not agree with. I stated earlier that these amendments should go back to the grassroots people and should be done by a band referendum, a band vote.

.1335

Bill C-79 doesn't really address some of the issues the council is facing today. Just in my situation at home we're spending tens of thousands of dollars trying to defend our band's rights against private CP owners who are developing, in my situation, trailer courts. We've been at this battle for a good ten years now and it's quite costly, but with amendments to the Indian Act we're going back another ten years, I believe. We'll have to start this all over again, because it does lean towards the CP owners. Yet in my situation my band council and my band do not have land for community developments such as housing, which is very much needed by my people.

We've been in litigation with the CP owners for two straight years now, with no help from Indian Affairs. We're scratching up every dollar we can to try to defend ourselves against the development. If Bill C-79 is implemented, we believe it's a lost battle. As the council says, we might just as well pack up and move out and let the corporations take over our village. We feel that strongly because we do not have control over CP owners.

We're not biased against them. It's just that as it is in the Indian Act now it's legal for them to put in any development they want without band council consent or consent of the people of the village. It's a major concern.

One situation we're in litigation with now is if this trailer court happens we have a dozen other people behind them, wanting the same developments, such as casinos, trailer courts, and massive rental housing. We'll support any project that helps the band deal with the housing situation, but for a CP owner to make all the money and the band to get nothing out of it except sacrificing all that land to non-Indians we feel is terribly wrong. With the amendments we believe we're going to be flooded with these kinds of developments.

It seems to me the council can make any decision it wants without consulting the people. It's going to tie our council's hands behind its back, to where we can't control development of that nature. We support developments if they benefit the people, not individuals.

We believe consent is a must. All our nations across Canada believe it should be dealt with in that manner, not by saying we can opt in and opt out. That's just dividing the people further than we're already divided on different issues.

To refer back to what is happening, again, the CP owners...we feel the council has too many rights or is given far too much power over the people without consent, with such things as going into debt with CMHC. The council can now sign that and put the band in debt without the consent of the village members. The borrowing power it has now doesn't seem to address the default of loans, especially using the land for collateral.

Treaty rights are another issue where we feel if the Government of Canada wants to make amendments, they should complement the treaty rights of each individual band. Right now, we feel our treaty is being infringed on.

.1340

I wish there were more people here today. I don't know what's happened to the people. I'm not sure whether there's a lack of interest, or what the story is here. As you can see, there's no one chairing this. There's no one else in the building, really.

But those are just a few points that I had time to write down this morning, because, as I said, I got in late last night. I'll just leave it at that, I guess, because those are most of my major concerns.

I just want to highlight a couple of other things, though, because we feel the band council is getting too much power without the consent of the people. There should be a referendum within any band that opts in. We also believe all of these amendments should go to a referendum; we believe these changes should go to a national forum of some kind in order that they can be voted on in an open assembly.

Every band across Canada should get a chance to provide some input, rather than having these few bands making the decisions for the smaller bands like mine, which includes 750 people. We have a lot to lose with these amendments, unlike a band that's well off, with a lot of leased lands and other developments made by the band council and CP owners. We feel all of these issues should be brought back home to the people again. They should be worked right back up instead of coming from the top on down to the bottom. It doesn't work that way in any kind of government, especially with our people. It's not a custom of ours to do business in that fashion.

We hope the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development will reconsider and not rush this thing through before there has been a lot of open discussion.

I'm sure there are a lot of other major issues I missed, that I didn't pick up on, but the Tsartlip Band would have to speak against this. This is what they've told me to do, so I'll leave it at that.

I thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Bartleman. On the point that no one is there with you and that nobody is chairing, the intent of this system is to bring you here. We have large TV screens here, and you are the only person we see on those screens. In that sense, we consider you to be in this room with us.

I don't grade presentations. I'm not a school teacher - at this time anyway - but I can tell you that you have talked about the issue on this table. I can also tell you that if it's not the best presentation I've heard, it certainly is one of the best. You have talked about the issue that the House of Commons has asked us to deal with. I congratulate you, and I want to thank you for that.

I will now open up questioning by members, beginning with Mr. Bachand of the Bloc Québécois.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Bartleman, I understand you were informed just last night that you were invited to appear today on Bill C-79.

There have been a number of complaints about the way the consultations are being held. A number of people have said that this is the first time they have heard about them and that they had very little time to react. Am I correct in saying that you were informed just last night? When was the band council first informed that there might be consultations on Bill C-79?

.1345

It is clear to me that you object to Bill C-79. I would like you to clarify your position and tell me whether you also object to the process used by the British Columbia Treaty Commission, because after waiting 100 years, you want to resolve the Douglas Treaty issue once and for all. You would be able to finalize your negotiations without necessarily going through the British Columbia Treaty Commission or without our passing Bill C-79, which is currently before us.

[English]

Mr. Bartleman: To deal with the Douglas Treaty issue, we believe we're not being treated fairly by the process that has been set up, especially in British Columbia. Right now, a lot of the major problems concern overlaps. In Saanich alone, which is where I live, we're overlapped from four different directions. If you look at the claims maps, we don't even exist. These are all claims made by new people coming into the treaty process. They are overlapping onto treaty land that was already defined when we consented to the peace treaty in 1852.

We feel that one of the preconditions going into the treaty process should be to ask each nation to define its territories first, instead of waiting until third or fourth stage of the treaty process before dividing it. All that does is create problems between neighbouring tribes. It's common history that we warred against each other to mark out these territories. We believe the Saanich people made a peace treaty in good faith and that the land was defined in 1852, yet all these claims are coming in.

I don't agree with the B.C. treaty process, but 70% of our people are into it. There's no consideration for the fourteen other Douglas treaties. Overlapping them seems to be a problem all around. The fishing territories, the hunting territories, are all being sketched on little maps that just take away from the Saanich people and the people under the other thirteen Douglas treaties.

To deal with the amendments as a whole, I can see merit to a lot of the recommendations, but again, they're not coming from the grassroots people. They're coming from the top down to the bottom, but it doesn't work that way. It doesn't work when our people are really not consulted in this whole process. Maybe we're now finally getting a chance to say something. The meetings that have been at the AFN, and all the special assemblies, all left us saying the same thing to the minister: we don't want it.

It seems like this is falling on deaf ears, but I really appreciate having the chance to say something, because you don't get a chance to get to the microphone as often as you want when you're at the national assemblies.

If it had been done differently, with all the people making these recommendations, with every tribe consenting, and without this thing being railroaded through Parliament, I think there would be a different situation today. There wouldn't be so much rejection. But it's not coming from the little people - that's what I call myself. It didn't come from us. As I said, the changes are coming from bands that are already rich, bands that are pretty well self-sufficient. I don't have a list of all66 bands, but from what I've heard and seen, they have nothing to lose. We are the ones who are losing here.

.1350

If I missed any of the questions, maybe you can ask me again.

The Chairman: Thank you. We'll move on and

[Translation]

we will have a second round, if required.

[English]

Is there anyone else?

Mr. Murphy.

Mr. John Murphy (Annapolis Valley - Hants, Lib.): Thank you for your presentation,Mr. Bartleman. I have a couple of questions.

There's a discrepancy arising from what I think is your issue of not hearing from the grass roots on these changes. As a matter of fact, this process has been going on among the grass roots over the last number of years, and these proposed changes have been coming forth from them. You personally may not have had input, but that is indeed where they've come from. It's not as though we sat down within the last few months and just found changes to make. We've been asked on numerous occasions to look at many of these changes.

I'd like you to talk a little bit about the leadership you mentioned. You said the band councils weren't consulting with the grass roots even before this legislation came forward. I'd like you to tell me what you think is wrong with the structure. What is not allowing the bands to be consulted more by their band council?

I would like to put this last question to you. Would you feel better if the opting-in requirement for the band membership came by consultation rather than just by band council resolution? That may be an amendment we could look at. You say the bands themselves don't have the opportunity to really feed in, but there are six new provisions in this Bill C-79 that require band membership consent. With regard to the bill itself, I would hope this would give you some comfort that the bands do have the opportunity to have input, based on those six clauses in this proposed bill.

So I'll just ask you for your thoughts on these questions.

Mr. Bartleman: On the issue of consultation, we've been aware almost from the beginning that there was a request issued by the Department of Indian Affairs for ideas on what changes would benefit the people the most. I can only speak for my band, and we weren't really taking those things seriously, because we felt the majority of the bands in British Columbia did not support this.

I didn't agree with consultation by sending letters back and forth. Since I came back to council a year and a half ago, the only thing I've seen is letters going back and forth. There were really no open forums and discussions on this.

I am a member of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs and I am a member of the Assembly of First Nations. As big political bodies, we rejected these because they don't really meet our needs.

My personal view is that the Indian Act should not be dismantled and filled in with these little amendments. I know there were some serious ones, as in Bill C-31 and other things that have been addressed. It might seem fair that these people who enfranchised themselves or lost status be given the right to come back.

.1355

Within six years, our population went up by 200 people in the village. It was predicted that if that amendment went through, we were going to have serious problems. We do have serious problems now within the village.

There were really no open consultations on how Bill C-31.... Well, I can't say we were consulted. I guess we weren't consulted. We were more or less told of the problems that were going to be created.

We cannot meet our housing demands because of this amendment. I know we're not talking about Bill C-31, but the other amendments coming along are all going to have some bearing on how we are treated. It's going to change the funding formulas. It promises a lot of things, but I don't think it's going to remedy it all.

As for the Indian Act, at one time, if we were consulted properly, we would all sit down together to decide to either abolish the Indian Act or modify the whole thing. But as councils are coming in and going out and making different amendments, having us live by it is really hard to swallow.

The only reason I use Bill C-31 is because with the population increase we had over the past six years, we jumped from needing 20 houses a year to needing 90 houses to just meet our demands. That's not counting the young teenagers in the population explosion we're expecting in our village within the next three or four years.

We've fallen so far behind. It's not addressing the real issue as the Indian Act as a whole. As much as people say they don't like the Indian Act, I think it's the only tool we have right now to work with. If there are going to be amendments done - I'll guess I'll say it again - there should be a national vote or a referendum at the band level.

As for these six provisions you spoke of, I'm not aware of them, but then again, I'm not a lawyer, who would pick up on some of that stuff. My people at home would not, at this time, want the Indian Act amended unless all the problems are going to be addressed and we take a good, serious look at how it's going to affect our band.

As for some of the major highlights, I think I just said a while ago that it will create some very serious problems, especially with the CP owners kind of running the whole village itself. What's happening in my village now is that the CP owner has more power and more say over the land then the council itself. We are concerned because we don't have any more band land left.

I think these are the issues that should really be put on the table: the land base. Then maybe some of these recommendations won't have such a big impact. If we had a larger land base, we could accommodate pretty well everyone. Where I come from, we got something like a quarter of an acre per person. It doesn't work that way, not for us anyway.

The Chairman: Thank you. For the benefit of everyone, CP owners means certificate of possession owners.

Are there any other questions? As there are none, Mr. Bartleman, thank you very much. That was an excellent presentation for debate. We appreciate that you started early, as this gave us a little bit of headway on our scheduling. We do wish to thank you very much.

Mr. Bartleman: Thank you.

.1400

The Chairman: For the benefit of members, Chief Marilyn Belleau and Bruce Mack will not be appearing.

.1401

.1413

The Chairman: We'll resume public hearings. We are pleased to welcome Judith Sayers from Vancouver, from the Opetchesaht First Nation.

I see you have a colleague with you. Will your colleague be presenting?

Ms Judith Sayers (Chief Councillor, Opetchesaht First Nation): No, she is here for support and maybe for answering questions, if we need her.

The Chairman: Okay, and if there's a need for her to get on record - that means if she answers questions or speaks - would you ask her to give her name and her title, if there is one.

Ms Sayers: I'm the chief councillor for the Opetchesaht First Nation. This is Irene Tatoosh. She is also on council.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Ms Sayers, we have with us Mr. Bachand, from the Bloc Québécois; Elijah Harper;Mr. Hubbard; Mr. Murphy; and I'm Ray Bonin, chair of the committee.

We have forty minutes together. The time belongs to you. You can use it in whatever way you want. We would appreciate it if you would allow some time for members to ask you questions. You may proceed at any time you're ready.

Ms Sayers: Thank you.

We have been mandated by our community to come to this forum to voice our opposition to Bill C-79, the Indian Act Optional Modification Act. Never at any time has our community asked the Minister of Indian Affairs or any of his officials to modify or change the Indian Act. In fact, at one of the earlier stages in this process our representative told Indian Affairs staff that we were definitely not interested in amending the act. We do not consider getting correspondence in our office asking for our opinion on draft legislation by a certain deadline ``consultation''.

.1415

If the Minister of Indian Affairs is interested in making positive changes in our first nation, he would visit our community and see what conditions our people live in. Only then would he begin to understand what has to be done in order to revitalize our community.

The Minister of Indian Affairs has refused to respect the decisions of the chiefs of this country by ignoring motions that were passed by the Assembly of First Nations in July 1996 and September 1996, motions that condemned the process the minister undertook to come up with this bill and rejected the proposed modifications.

The only thing the minister did in order to take into account the objections of 85% of the first nations of this country was to change it so that first nations can opt into the legislation if they so wish.

But once you opt in, you can't opt out. That's in subclause 5(2) of the proposed bill. Our community felt that we must voice our objections as we do not want to remain silent and have the government think that silence is consent.

The Opetchesaht First Nation territory comprises 229,000 hectares, which encompasses the city of Port Alberni on Vancouver Island. Our current reserve base is so small that it is far less than 1% of our actual territory. Our reserve base is 265 hectares.

The Indian Act has contained us to these small tracts of land and the Indian Act Optional Modification Act does not change this. Our first nation was given small tracts of land because we used the rivers and the oceans for our food and other sustenance. With such a small land base, economic, community, and recreational development is almost impossible. Land is the key to our development as a people.

The Opetchesaht First Nation has been involved in the British Columbia treaty process for more than two years. We are now negotiating an agreement in principle. Large parts of these negotiations comprise the issues of jurisdiction and governance. To have the federal government modify the Indian Act at this point in the negotiation process does not show good faith and is actually a slap in the face for what we are trying to accomplish. In the words of one of our community members, the bill makes this treaty process meaningless.

For too long the government has imposed their ideas on what it thinks is best for us and on how things should run. Now it is our turn. Only we know what is best for us.

The preamble to Bill C-79, the proposed legislation, describes the bill as ``an interim measure until such time as self-government agreements are in place, and for other purposes'', purposes that are not specified in the bill.

In the British Columbia Comprehensive Claims Task Force report, which the federal government has accepted and endorsed, an interim measure is described in recommendation 16 in this way:

16. The parties negotiate interim measures agreements before or during the treaty negotiations when an interest is being affected which could undermine the process.

Obviously, the Minister of Indian Affairs is well aware of this, as his predecessor signed the B.C. treaty commission agreement and the federal government has passed legislation enabling the British Columbia Treaty Commission.

At no time was the issue of an interim measure modifying the Indian Act brought up at our treaty table. This was done by the unilateral actions of the minister. Modifying the Indian Act does not fall within the criteria for an interim measure. In fact, Bill C-79 could be what undermines the treaty process.

.1420

Our community feels our human rights continue to be violated through legislation imposed on us by the federal government. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, section 1, state that all people have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely pursue their political status and freely pursue their economic, social, and cultural development. Bill C-79 continues to ignore our right of self-determination. The bill continues to allow the federal government to govern our lives, determine our status, and always be subject to the minister's final approval or discretion.

Clause 5 in the bill allows the council of the first nation to opt into these modifications. This clause does not require any consultation or consent of the people. For a community-based government, this is totally unacceptable. In our case a majority of the council would be two people, myself and Irene, out of an elector's list of about 135 people. Clearly this is an injustice.

What makes it even worse in the bill is that the council does not even have to have a duly convened meeting to discuss whether they want to opt into this legislation. They can just go around and collect signatures on a band council resolution on an issue that will affect the community significantly. That's in proposed subparagraph 6(2)(b)(ii) of the bill. This is not self-government.

Furthermore, clause 8 of the bill makes our first nation a person. This is demeaning and degrading. We are a nation. We have been recognized by your government as such since the Royal Proclamation of 1763. We have never been conquered in war. We have never signed a treaty. We have never consented to be part of Canada. Nothing has changed the status we have had since time immemorial.

Making our first nation a person is inflammatory. The person created by this bill is not even an Indian person, which makes it questionable whether the tax exemptions in the Indian Act will apply. This is very discriminatory.

The government has historically used the Indian Act to destroy our governments. Earlier versions of the Indian Act imposed the elective system on us, trying to change our power base. Clearly, making our government a person perpetuates the intent of attempting to destroy what we are.

Our community has reviewed this bill clause by clause. While I do not intend to comment on it clause by clause, there are some points I need to make.

Clause 42 of the bill allows the minister to enter into agreements for the education of our children with basically whomever he wants to. There is no need for the minister to obtain our consent or even to consult with our first nation. Was it not religious organizations that led to the cases of abuse in residential schools? Yet this is one of the options the minister has to choose from to have someone educate our children. The paternalism in this provision reeks. It opens it up for further abuse or neglect of our children.

Clauses 18 and 21 of the bill give the minister the power to allow the council, with the consent of the members, to take over certain duties in the management of reserves and surrendered lands and to manage or carry out any transaction affecting land on reserves. This power or delegation is subject to conditions imposed by the minister, and no guidelines or criteria are set on what conditions these can be. The conditions could render the power or delegation meaningless.

Further, this power or delegation can be revoked by the minister at any time. It does not say why or how the minister can revoke this power.

.1425

These clauses are too arbitrary and give sweeping powers to the minister. This bill was an attempt to reduce the power of the minister, but in instances such as these it actually gives him more power. This again is not an improvement over the Indian Act and is nowhere close to self-government.

Our community feels the cost of the minister initiating the process and proceeding with this process over the objections of 85% of the first nations in this country in the hearings to date has been a great expense for the very few first nations who will opt into this legislation if it is passed. We feel this money would have been better spent on housing and infrastructure, which all our communities are in such great need of.

Times are changing. People are changing. First nations are changing. The only thing that does not change is the federal government's desire to maintain a paternalistic, overbearing role in our lives. It is time to untie the apron strings.

The treaty we negotiate will replace the Indian Act, the Department of Indian Affairs, and the reserve system. We are a self-determining people. Step by step, we will gradually regain control over all aspects of our lives, control just as our ancestors had before the coming of the white man. No longer will we tolerate government interference in our lives. Your government must recognize the answers to our issues and to our advancement do not lie in the Indian Act or the Indian Act Optional Modification Act and the sooner your government recognizes this and does not pass Bill C-79 into law the farther ahead all of us will be.

We look forward to the new partnership we will develop through our treaty. We do not envision the Indian Act Optional Modification Act as part of this partnership and we hereby strongly register our opposition to Bill C-79.

Klecko, klecko.

I would be glad to answer any questions that any members have.

The Chairman: Thank you very much for your presentation, Ms Sayers. It's a very informative piece of work and it relates to the bill, which is a treat for us.

We'll open it up for questions. Mr. Bachand.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand: Thank you for your presentation, Ms Sayers. Although I have been to British Columbia a number of times, unfortunately, I have not had the opportunity to meet you until today. I hope to be able to visit your community on another trip. British Columbia has a number of communities, 225 to be precise, and I'm always pleased to discover new ones.

I listened very closely to your presentation. You seem to be of the same mind as the Grand Chief of the First Nations, who says that a consultation is not just a few letters back and forth. Your comments are very similar to his. Could you tell us how your community was consulted on this issue? Did you hear about the consultations for the first time last week? Did the minister send you letters you could have responded to by saying you weren't at all interested in participating in the consultations? Could you give us an overview of the consultation process? Specifically, how is it carried out in your community?

I have a second question. With regard to the British Columbia Treaty and the Commission, do you think that right now, and my question will be very clear, Bill C-79 is a threat to the British Columbia Treaty Commission process?

I met one of the commissioners in Vancouver between Christmas and New Year's Day. The Commission seems to be working fairly well and making progress on certain files. I do not know what the situation was with your community, but a number of communities had given their approval and were going through the sixth step required for a final agreement. Do you think Bill C-79 is currently a threat to the entire process used by the Commission, which in fact leads to full agreement between the province, the government and the relevant First Nations?

.1430

[English]

Ms Sayers: Thank you for those questions. I believe it was a year ago from the summer that we had some correspondence from Indian Affairs about having a workshop in Nanaimo. We sent our other councillor to that workshop. They had indicated some thoughts that they wanted to change the Indian Act. It was at that point that our representative told them we weren't interested.

Subsequently in our office we did receive some material that I've never seen. I don't know if you appreciate the amount of material we get in our offices, but it's quite mega. I really never became aware of this proposed legislation until early September, when we started receiving a lot of phone calls and a lot of material from the Assembly of First Nations, at which time I studied the bill in detail.

I did go to the chiefs' meeting in Winnipeg in September, at which the Minister of Indian Affairs went through the legislation clause by clause. I thought he didn't know we knew how to read. Then he answered ten or fifteen questions from some of the delegates. I don't consider that consultation either.

I didn't have an opportunity to voice my opinion. Too many people were waiting. He was basically not willing to listen, I thought. He didn't show any respect for the motions that had been passed and wasn't really willing to listen.

From there, when there were amendments, again we studied this in February and we prepared a simplified version of the bill for our community members, a version we reviewed, coming to this position today.

That's the process of consultation we've had. We've never had anyone from Indian Affairs in our community. Basically it was just some letters. A lot of it got hidden in the correspondence we received. A lot more things we paid attention to came from the Assembly of First Nations and other first nations.

Your second question was about the B.C. Treaty Commission and whether it's threatening the treaty process. As far as we're concerned, we are committed to negotiating a treaty. We want to do it. I think this is just another thing that will build the mistrust between us and the federal government at a time when we are trying to build trust between us in order to negotiate a treaty. We're wondering what else the government has up its sleeve, what else it's going to do in the interim, while we're trying to negotiate a treaty. Our fear is that this may be precedent setting. So in that way it impacts on the treaty process, in that we are questioning the motives of the federal government, we are questioning the good faith and the intentions of the federal government.

We will continue to negotiate, there's no doubt in my mind. It has gone on too long. In the 1920s my grandfather negotiated land claims. I hope my children or my grandchildren aren't negotiating land claims.

That would be my answer to that question. If you would like me to elaborate on anything, please let me know.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Bachand.

[English]

Mr. Murphy.

Mr. John Murphy: Thank you for your presentation, Ms Sayers.

On your issue of the provision on education and the minister entering into agreements, I think formerly, as you may understand, the minister was unable to enter into agreements with band councils. Now this does enable him to do it. Obviously what this allows as well is that the bands will be able to educate their own children through this agreement with the minister. I'm just wondering why you would see that as a bad thing. You pointed out that the provision on education wasn't acceptable.

Ms Sayers: The problem is that the discretion lies with the minister. He can choose from the council, the province, the public school boards, the churches, other charitable organizations. It would basically be within his power. Nothing in this clause makes him consult with us, makes him sit down and talk with us, or even obtain our consent. We may not like what he's doing. If he transfers all our education dollars to this religious organization without our consent, then what do we do? Where do we go?

.1435

We're not past that stage of mistrust with the Minister of Indian Affairs. I don't think we're on.... And that's what we don't like: the openness and the.... If it said ``with the consent of the council'', that might be better. This provision leaves it up to him entirely how to educate our children, and that's just not acceptable to us.

Mr. John Murphy: If you were to amend that aspect, what would you say?

Ms Sayers: I would say the minister ``with the consent of the council of the first nation'' may enter into agreements with the council, the province, religious organizations - the list of things there. It would involve us in those agreements in a direct way.

The Chairman: Mr. Hubbard.

Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): About the current act, your position is that it's better to live under it than to approach a new one. Can you indicate to this committee points of the present act you are very much concerned about? They could be parts we are amending but maybe other parts we're not. Are there certain aspects of it you are concerned about?

Ms Sayers: Certain aspects we're concerned about in the bill or in the current Indian Act?

Mr. Charles Hubbard: In the current Indian Act.

Ms Sayers: Basically we don't like the current Indian Act. There is much in the Indian Act we don't use. Our community doesn't have any by-laws. Most of what is in the Indian Act right now doesn't apply to us. We don't have any taxation by-laws. The only thing we're really living under is the membership rules.

But we're not saying it's better to live under the conditions of the Indian Act. We're saying the Indian Act should be burned. It should be done away with. Why try to change something that isn't good? We're going to be doing this in our treaty negotiations, so let us do it. Let us do it in our way, in our time, as we want it, and not have it imposed upon us unilaterally by the federal government.

I know we have the right to opt in, but it's still the method, the way it is being done. Why is the federal government doing it at this time, when it's not looking at other things? There are many, many provisions within this bill I would take issue with, but as I said, I didn't want to go into great detail.

Under the current Indian Act there are many concerns we have. It's very outdated. It's outmoded. It's paternalistic. But we're looking for a new solution that we can work in partnership to develop, not something we haven't had that kind of input into.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: With your first nation, you mentioned 165 people living on reserve. How many live off reserve?

Ms Sayers: That was our electors. We have just over 100 people living on reserve. At present our membership is about 214.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: From your point of view, should people living off reserve have the same responsibilities and benefits in terms of the first nation, or are they people who are separate from your government of the first nation you represent?

Ms Sayers: All members should have the same rights equally, whether they live on reserve or off reserve. They should be able to vote. They should be able to participate in major decisions. We share the land collectively. We share our resources collectively. They need to have a vote and a say in how those assets are used and spent.

The Chairman: Mr. Harper.

Mr. Elijah Harper (Churchill, Lib.): Ms Sayers, it's Elijah Harper talking here.

I'm just going to make a statement on some of your comments. I would just like to point out that I'm also a treaty person, a first nations person. I'm part of Parliament. I'm also a member of the government. I've been in the mainstream political process for a long time.

.1440

I have always regarded the Indian Act not as a basis of our rights at all. If we are to develop relationships, I always thought the Indian Act should have been an act that would have established the relationship between first nations and the governments in this country, particularly the federal government. I've always viewed it that way. I've always viewed the Indian Act not to be a basis of our rights at all.

I still hold that view. Any rights we acquire, any relationships we develop have always been through a nation-to-nation and government-to-government relationship. That's when we sign treaties in that particular area.

The Indian Act itself is a piece of legislation that was done by the federal government. Of course, the federal government, if we were to hold our position as a sovereign nation, would be a foreign institution.

In this case, I've always held the view also that this is not an aboriginal piece of legislation within our own sense of the inherent government we have, which is recognized within the Canadian Constitution.

Therefore, any legislation we develop in Parliament does not necessarily override the rights of our people. As a matter of fact, within the Canadian Constitution, treaty rights are paramount over any provincial or federal legislation.

I just wanted to tell you that even though this legislation may appear to be something that is imposed on aboriginal people, I can say with confidence that our people will always have the ability and credibility to uphold their inherent right to self-government with dignity. That will never be taken away, in spite of governments appearing to do that.

I am here as a member of Parliament to protect the interests of aboriginal people. I am one of the few who has the privilege and honour to be able to advance the concerns of our people in the foreign institution. It is with great honour that I'm able to do that. I have the support of our people, because I don't think I have compromised any rights at all.

As a matter of fact, the minister has made it.... The government, Parliament, would make this an option. There is also a non-derogation clause in which it states that the treaty and aboriginal rights, including the inherent right to self-government, will not be affected.

We as aboriginal people have to take that as a commitment and an honour that has to be maintained by the government. It is not our problem in the sense that the government cannot hold that. I believe our people are much more honourable than the governments have been in this century.

That's why I said we can survive. We have the credibility to do that. I don't hold that much of this bill will be adopted by the first nations in this country.

I just wanted to make it clear to you where I'm coming from. I'm here to protect the interests of our people, and I will continue to do that. I just wanted to make those few comments.

.1445

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Harper. Are there any other questions?

Did you wish to make some closing remarks, Ms Sayers?

Ms Sayers: In response to Mr. Harper's comments, we all choose the path that we walk on.Mr. Harper has chosen to put his energy into your government and your legislature.

I fully understand that the Indian Act is not the source of our rights, but this Indian Act is there. It affects every aspect of our life. If somebody is trespassing on our reserve, we have to use that law even though we can't get anybody to enforce it. If we want to control dogs, we have to pass a by-law. If we want to access our capital dollars from Ottawa, we have to send in a BCR with the consent of our people. Those are the realties we live with, and they are certainly not things we want to continue living with.

As I say, I'm looking forward to a treaty in order that we don't have to appear in front of these types of forums any more to discuss these things. We will have dispute resolution mechanisms to deal with the issues, the rights, and anything else we choose to put in our treaty.

Mr. Harper, you have also said you don't think there are many first nations that are going to accept this bill. Then why pass it? What's the use? What's the need for it? Is it just something the government feels it has to do in order to try to move with the times? It hasn't moved with the times. It has taken maybe a very tiny step, and the only things we appreciate in the new bill are the upping of the fines to $5,000 and the ability to put more teeth into laws that we have not yet passed but may consider passing now that it's worth it.

We're really looking forward to a time when we can stand up and say we did this; this is a system that we designed. Yes, we're going to make mistakes. Yes, we're going to fall down. Yes, we're going to learn, pick ourselves up, and try something new. But at least we will have done it. It's not the government that has destroyed the hereditary systems of chieftanship we have. It's not the government that destroyed our membership when they took our women away from us for marrying out. It will be us; we'll take the responsibility for it. That's all part of being a nation. It's all part of what our ancestors did, and it's what we'll continue to do.

I appreciate the time you have given and the questions you have asked. As I said, I didn't go into any great detail on the clause-by-clause analysis. There were many concerns that came out of the things we went through in our community, but we wanted to do the highlights.

Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thank you very much for your presentation.

This concludes this part of the hearings.

First of all, the committee members and the support staff may be pleased to know that the last presentation, which was scheduled for 8:20 p.m. eastern daylight time, will be made at 6:20 p.m. Chief Saul Terry, president of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, has accepted our request to replace Mr. Bruce Mack, of the Cariboo Tribal Council. Mr. Mack has told us he can't be here, so support staff and committee members should be through by 8:20 this evening, at the latest.

After this next presentation, we'll be able to take a break until 4:20 p.m. The witness scheduled for 3:40 p.m. is not going to be here.

.1450

We now have Ms Dawn Mills with us from Vancouver. Ms Mills is a spokesperson from the Aboriginal Rights Coalition.

Welcome to the committee. I see you have colleagues with you, Ms Mills. Will they be presenting?

Ms P. Dawn Mills (Principal Researcher and Recording Secretary, Aboriginal Rights Coalition (Project North - Vancouver)): I actually have three colleagues with me: Ms Mary Reilly, Ms Lydia Sayle, and Ms Cynthia Llewellyn.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Ms Mills. We have forty minutes together. That time belongs to you, and you may use it in whichever way you please. We would appreciate it, though, if you would allow some time for members to question you. Having said that, I ask you to begin at your convenience.

Ms Mills: The Aboriginal Rights Coalition (Project North - Vancouver) is an ecumenical group of concerned citizens and church organizations committed to social justice issues pertaining to first nations people. The ten churches and church organizations have given the Aboriginal Rights Coalition the mandate to speak for them on first nations issues, both at the national and local levels. We stand with first nations communities and people to achieve justice through advocacy, research, and public education, while seeking to increase awareness of aboriginal issues among church people, policy makers, and the wider community.

ARC Vancouver is a member of ARC B.C. and the national ARC. Our presentation will focus on the following: a brief overview of our position on the Indian Act; a comment on the consultative processes undertaken to achieve these amendments; and a strong suggestion that the standing committee review the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples report before it recommends passage of this legislation.

The present Indian Act and the proposed amendments are largely Victorian legislation in a conceptual as well as historic sense. The central philosophical assumptions and policies of modern Indian administration were formed in the 1820s, and they have continued in various forms. The proposed amendments can be perceived as yet another layer aimed at keeping first nations people as wards of the government, thus preventing their communities from achieving self-reliance and from moving beyond the 19th century.

The maintenance of the Indian Act in its present form, or including the proposed optional changes, continues to be protective in the sense that any actions taken by the band councils require ministerial consent, while the minister retains veto power. Furthermore, all in all, the act is assimilative in that the minister will continue to delegate power and funds to bands irrespective of how the bands perceive themselves or their needs, thus encouraging the notion that to stay on the reserve is to be destined to poverty and exclusion.

The paradox is that in its present form or with the proposed changes included, the Indian Act is crucial to the self-identity of some first nations communities and the people who live on reserves. The Indian Act is thus as much a part of first nations life as it is a contributor to its destruction, so structures and intents of the act have persisted in communities where there is little interest; that is, the definition of an Indian band, how a council is elected, or what it can or cannot do, are vehicles in which the federal government acknowledges the presence of an Indian in a particular location.

The idea of merely changing this legislation is fraught with complications. The Indian Act is a law, a piece of legislation. As such, it engages politically and constitutionally. From a political standpoint, it raises the profound issue of how one society can't legislate for another - an issue that is dealt with in the international context and in the context of colonization. Since 1945 there has been a marked stance in international law that one society cannot regulate the affairs of another.

.1455

In this regard, many first nations people argue that they are peoples. As such, they are immune to or protected against one-sided measures, and the whole act should therefore be repealed. However, other first nations people are reluctant to raise such a wide-ranging view to opt out of this federal legislation that affords them measured protection at a price.

However they accept the various degrees of legitimacy in the Canadian state, first nations do press for more substantive domestic recognition of their special constitutional status. These particular issues are underlying to the debate of any Indian Act discussions. Although it will not be discussed in detail, this debate is acknowledged to be present and important, and it should be taken into account. It is also hoped that the standing committee will acknowledge that the above debate will affect any assessment of the proposed reforms, since proposed federal remedial legislation will still require the dominant society to legislate for and to another society.

Presently, there are many important, unanswered questions that arise from the domestic constitutional perspective in relation to the Indian Act. The precise limits of Parliament's authority under the Constitution Act, 1867, section 91, class 24, are not demarcated. Speculation by a number of people has held that the federal government could, if it so desired, pass legislation for first nations people outside the areas of federal competency. This has not been the practice, as this would make Indian reserves federal enclaves - similar to federal reservations in the United States - and first nations communities sovereign. For all intents and purposes, the associated lands are the special relationship reflected in class 24. They are our federal legislators' responsibility, whereas first nations people are provincial residents for the purpose of everyday life in areas unrelated to federal legislative authority.

The provincial relationship with first nations people has not always been a given, meaning that their inclusion as provincial residents has been a negotiated inclusion, and it is contingent on the federal government guaranteeing financial responsibility for the first nations person. The history of residential schools and access to medical care are prime examples of this negotiated provincial relationship.

In addition to the ambiguous relationship that the federal government has with first nations peoples, Parliament has never legislated to its fullest extent its authority over territories referred to as ``Lands reserved for the Indians''. Lands have been viewed narrowly and have been restricted to reserves under the Indian Act. As well as not acknowledging in the broadest sense the protection of Indian lands referred to in the Royal Proclamation of 1763 or in the treaties, Parliament has not legislated for all those who fall under the category ``Indians''.

Presently, there are two groups of first nations people created for administrative purposes: status and non-status Indians. Under the Indian Act, status Indians are the only first nations people recognized as falling under Parliament's legislative authority. Historically, Parliament has altered the definition of first nations persons in the Indian Act, thus demonstrating that if it so desired, it could legislate for those who are referred to as non-status Indians or Métis whenever it so wishes just by bringing non-status Indians and Métis under and within the definition of ``Indian''.

It is unlikely that the proposed changes to the Indian Act can be adapted to the current political or constitutional reality of Canada. For that matter, first nations communities need local-level control over cultural areas. These would include governance, membership, education, social services, and so forth. At the level of nation, first nations also need to have jurisdiction over the lands and resources within the boundaries of the community, as well as a shared jurisdiction in their traditional territories. This will entail legitimate relationships with provincial governments, relationships built and based on equality and trust.

I will comment now on the consultative process.

.1500

It has been established that the Government of Canada has a fiduciary obligation to consult with first nations people on issues of importance to them. Since the Indian Act in its present form, or proposed form, is the closest first nations communities have come to self-government, we as a nation may be moving a little too quickly in the wrong direction. One would hope tinkering with the most fundamental document, the Indian Act, would be an area in which the federal government would walk and listen very carefully.

In March 1995 there was an announcement from Mr. Irwin's office of the intention to amend the Indian Act. In April 1995 we had a first request to the chiefs, outlining the extent of the proposed changes. In September 1995 there was another letter, enclosing a list of the proposed changes, with a request to respond to them. Then there was a further notification, that once the final package was complete it would proceed to cabinet for approval to draft amendments in June of 1996. Someone was working at the cottage over the summer in 1996, having in September a preliminary draft ready for comment, a draft that was presented to cabinet. Then in December 1996 it was introduced in Parliament, bypassing second reading. Then it was sent to committee, with hearings scheduled across the country.

This sounds more like monuments being built with shaky foundations than government legislation. It was all to be wrapped up in law before the election is called either in late spring or in early fall. One wants to ask where in the works is the first nations land and management act that would pass into the hands of fourteen communities real authority to manage their leases with non-aboriginal concerns on their reserves.

Meaningful consultation requires an open mind and good faith on the part of the government preceding the making of a decision in which the invitation to consult is being offered. Although this may have happened, the timing doesn't sound right. The government cannot discharge its obligation to consult simply by advising first nations of its intention or decision. It seems from the timing and the magnitude of the proposed changes, whether they are legitimizing existing practices or not, consultation was minimal, brief, and happening on the eve of enactment.

Comment on the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples.

The final report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, the presentations, both written and oral, and the reports of past commissions are a compendium of the historic relations between the first nations people of Canada, the British Crown, and the Canadian government. These documents compose a basis for the renewal of first nations people and a starting point from which the federal and provincial governments can engage in meaningful discussions with first nations communities to mutual ends. The recommendations suggest that several fronts be launched, which include work on a first nations act redefining the fiduciary obligations and relationships with the federal government and including references to treaties and other legislation concerning the affairs of first nations people.

We know the present response of the federal government to the RCAP report is that it cannot examine this document until after the election. However, it can write amendments to the Indian Act, missing a golden opportunity to make amends with the Crown's strongest ally, the first people.

We, a church-based group, feel the present and proposed form of the Indian Act is a paternalistic document that is self-serving to the ends of the administration of reserve lands. We feel the healing of the historic relationship between the Crown and first nations people must become a priority. This will involve fundamental changes in attitudes between the Government of Canada and first nations people. It will also involve the transfer of real authority to first nations communities, not an an ad hoc basis, to make decisions. This will also entail careful planning at the federal, provincial, and first nations level. This means everyone invited to the table must be available for compromise and the first nations community must not be the only entity compromising.

To this end we are able to draw wisdom from the RCAP report, where it has been recommended that the unit of power not be at the local band level but at a regional or first nation level, encompassing several communities and a greater territorial base. It is to this end that we urge the standing committee to halt the proposed changes and examine the RCAP report recommending that government become actively engaged in assisting first nations communities to work on areas of local concern and areas that would bring first nations communities into being that third level of government.

.1505

The Chairman: Thank you very much. Before I proceed to questions by members, your last comments about the committee halting the work.... The committee does not have the power to halt the work of the House of Commons. This bill has been tabled in the House. It no longer belongs to the minister; it belongs to the House of Commons. The House has delegated this committee to peruse it and to try to improve it by amendments or any other recommendation, to be sent back to the House. I would like it clear that this committee does not have the power to halt the work of the House.

We will now proceed to questions.

Mr. Bachand.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand: Mr. Chairman, I would first like to raise a point of order. This is the second time in two days. French, an official language, is being neglected again today. There is no simultaneous interpretation. I was promised there would not be any reverberation or humming. I gather translators are incapable of translating when presentations are being made.

I do not want to make a big deal out of this. You know that I am fairly bilingual and that I understand both languages, but put yourself in my shoes. What would you do if one of your colleagues spoke only French? He has the right to speak French in Canada. There would not be any interpretation. Right now, the only reason you have quorum is because you have a member of the opposition, but if I weren't here, you wouldn't. Again, I deplore this situation and I will have to speak to my whip to see what I should do about it.

I have always used my better judgement. Our whip has told us that if we do not have a translated document or if there is no interpretation, we should leave the room. I showed my better judgement by saying this matter should not be pushed too far. But this is the second day that has happened and I would not like there to be a third.

I leave that up to your discretion. I am asking you to make arrangements to have simultaneous interpretation. I am nonetheless going to speak to my whip about it to see what I am supposed to do. I know already what she is going to say: You should leave the committee forthwith. Do not force me to do so. That is what I am asking you.

The Chairman: All right, Mr. Bachand. First of all, on behalf of committee members, I would like to thank you for being here today. I did not know there was no interpretation. I fully support your comments. Two full days without interpretation is unacceptable.

If I had to rely on it, I would have known sooner and I would have acted myself. I fully support you and promise that I will knock on all the doors I have too. I cannot promise you that the situation will be rectified, because I do not have the know-how to do it myself, but I promise you there will be some action. I thank you for your generous contribution and co-operation.

Mr. Claude Bachand: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I now have some questions for our witness.

Thank you for your presentation and for the work you do. Just this week, I spoke with some of your colleagues in my Ottawa office. They were very concerned about the lac Barrière issue, in Quebec. When you answer my questions, I would like you to tell us about the makeup of your organization. On the agenda, it says ``Aboriginal Rights Coalition, Vancouver'', but when you added the words ``North - Vancouver Project'', I assumed you had ties with those who make representations in Quebec, Ontario and elsewhere. Perhaps you could explain the composition of your organization, which, by the way, is a very worthwhile one.

In your brief, you clearly indicated that you did not agree with the Indian Act. If you try to link cause and effect; you also do not agree with amending the Indian Act. You think the future of Aboriginal First Nations would be much brighter if there were treaties rather than an amendment to the Indian Act or by relying solely on the Indian Act itself. Could you clarify that?

Secondly, with regards to the consultation process, you told the committee about everyone's concern, namely that a consultation goes well beyond an exchange of correspondence. It must go much further than that.

You also said that to have a broad and effective consultation, you had to be open-minded.

.1510

Am I to understand, then, that the current consultation process is proof of the government's narrow-mindedness? That is more or less what a number of presenters have said.

I would like to ask one last question on the Erasmus-Dussault Royal Commission of Inquiry on Aboriginal peoples. Do you think Bill C-79 in its current form goes against the philosophy of the Royal Commission of Inquiry's report? Thank you for your presentation.

[English]

Ms Mills: Thank you very much. The Aboriginal Rights Coalition (Project North - Vancouver) is an ecumenical group that was started in 1975 with a first nation community in B.C. - as well as across the country - approaching the major churches of Canada, the Anglican, Roman Catholic, and United churches, for support in trying to further some of their major concerns.

The major concern at that time was the Mackenzie River Valley pipeline, and that was out of the Berger inquiry in the north. That started first nations people talking about themselves and about how they felt side-stepped in the public hearing process as well as in what was considered to be an interpretation of their rights by the federal government.

Since then, Project North has turned into the Aboriginal Rights Coalition, and we have used Project North as a bracketed name so that people who knew us as Project North can associate us with our larger body, the Aboriginal Rights Coalition. At present we have network groups across Canada and we have a national focus. As well, we have the provincial body, which is an amalgamation of local people.

We do have very strong feelings about the Indian Act as a piece of legislation that legislates for and to first nations communities with minimal input from them. As I said in the presentation, it's a ``double-edged sword'' piece of legislation. It now is the only real definition or touchstone that the federal government has for first nations communities and is used in administrational units by the Department of Indian Affairs at the local level for some type of cross-fertilization.

Historically, those councils or those positions were mainly filled by non-aboriginal people or the Indian agent. That transfer of positions to first nations people who are actually on the reserve has happened slowly and over time, according to the building of skills of the first nations community - whether or not they agree that is how they view themselves.

As we've heard from the two other first nations presenters, the band council's way is not necessarily the way in which the council or the band or the community views itself. It may or may not look like what we know as the band council or the band administration.

Specifically what will happen in B.C. after the formation of treaties...the direction most communities want to take is that they really do not want to be under the governance of the Indian Act, as we can see with the Nisga'a agreement in principle and their imminent treaty.

We also could use the Sechelt land act as another particular model where the community is not being governed by the conditions and process that are outlined in the Indian Act. Again, the Sechelt people don't have the treaty, which in a way legitimizes their relationship inside the whole larger picture with both the federal and provincial governments.

With respect to the consultation process, it really has been shown in various case laws...and I look at the initial Sparrow decision, where even though the particular issue was a resource, it was considered to be a fiduciary obligation of the Crown, through the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, to have meaningful consultations with the first nations community on location, needs, and entitlement as well as methodologies by which fish or wildlife or foodstuffs were gathered by the community itself, and also who would be the person.

.1515

That also was reinforced in Delgamuukw v. Attorney General of British Columbia and Attorney General of Canada. It has also been determined in what is known as the triple ``J'' case. Consultation must be meaningful and to the end of being at ground level, so to speak, and not necessarily after the fact.

Again, there is other case law that looks to that. I've just noted larger ones, and possibly the more familiar ones, the ones Parliament may be aware of.

The Chairman: Are there any other questions from members?

Mr. Hubbard.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: I really just have a thought, Mr. Chairman. You did explain the committee's role in this.

One of the first tasks this committee will have in reviewing the new proposed changes to Bill C-79 is the title of the bill. I note you work with a coalition with many different aboriginal groups. Does the title really fit the relationships our federal government has with Indian people across this country when you consider that many Indian people live off reserve? What would your words to our committee be about the title to the act, ``Indian Act''?

Ms Mills: The Indian Act reflects the colonial nature of the act. I believe moving away from something one doesn't name oneself would be a very positive step.

We saw representatives of first nations who could not refer to themselves as ``Indian''. It's really more general.... They come from specific communities with specific locations and specific histories. To have the term ``Indian'', which is singular.... No real Indians really refer to themselves as singular. They always tend to refer to themselves as within a collective. So moving away from a linguistic term that implies an individual to one that would imply community would probably be.... The RCAP report has been looking at a ``First Nations Act'', or an act that is inclusive of the term or the situation of the community.

For the committee to go ahead and examine the proposed changes under the rubric of ``First Nations''.... ``Indian'' is contrary to the direction of what the communities themselves want to go towards, or what the individuals within the communities want to go towards. They want their communities to be strengthened, because they are not singular. They have kinship ties. They have ties to their history. They have ties to their location. They have ties to the future, because they want to be able to look to their children and their grandchildren, to say this is my legacy or this is my position; I'm a member of a larger community.

I believe that has never excluded the greater Canadian population. In fact, to live off reserve is not foremost in a community member's mind. It is to be associated and exchanging within their community. The reality is that there's not enough housing on reserve to house everybody, because sometimes there's not enough territory within those parcels of land to accommodate the housing or the community needs.

.1520

Again, we've created a situation in which people have to go off reserve in order to find employment, but they don't dissociate themselves from their communities once they're off reserve. In fact, their presence and structures in their own minds are that they are part of a community.

So it would go a long way, but just changing the name of a piece of legislation that isn't necessarily for the interests of the community or the people is counter-productive. It's the content inside the act itself that most first nations communities take issue with.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Harper.

Mr. Elijah Harper: First of all, Dawn, I'd like to thank you for your presentation. I think your comments are very helpful.

I'm aware of the Aboriginal Rights Coalition. I have been involved with them as far back as even 1978 and 1979. When I was chief of the Red Sucker Lake Band, I worked closely with the Aboriginal Rights Coalition on a number of issues, so I'm very well aware of the coalition and I know a number of people there.

I just wanted to thank you for your presentation. I know that in B.C. there are a number of issues being discussed. I know the Indian Act is being discussed.

You also mentioned the Nisga'a agreement in principle. I think that's the closest thing I see to recognizing the Indian people as having full recognition. The Nisga'a people - although it's an agreement in principle - have been recognized as neither falling under the federal law in the Indian Act or under provincial legislation. So it is in a sense beginning to recognize another level of government here in this country. It has come very late in our relationship, which is hundreds of years old. So we're making slow progress, but it is not fast enough.

I believe those are things that will encourage the people to become involved in this whole process. I just wanted to say that to you to thank you for your presentation. Thank you.

Ms Mills: Thank you. The committee spent some time considering the Indian Act and the proposed changes in their fullest meaning and understanding by first nations people. Thank you.

The Chairman: I sense that I lost control of the meeting here. Did you have a question?

Mr. Elijah Harper: No, no. I just wanted to thank her for her presentation and acknowledge her. That's all.

The Chairman: Thank you very much. I do want to thank you very much for your presentation.

Now, for committee members, we will break until 4:20 p.m. because of the absence of Chief Marilyn Belleau. We'll suspend until that time.

.1523

.1622

The Chairman: We will resume our proceedings and hearings.

We are pleased to welcome, from the Neskonlith Indian Band, Chief Arthur Manuel, and from the Shuswap Nation Tribal Council, Chief Arthur Manuel again, with the director of intergovernmental affairs, Wayne Haimila.

Welcome to the committee, because in fact on TV you are in this room and you are the centre of focus of our meeting. We want to thank you for agreeing to present today.

Normally we would have 40 minutes for a presentation. We have up to 80 minutes now. If you need that much time, we'll use it up. We'll make sure everybody has a chance to present everything. We would appreciate that you allow time for members to ask questions.

You may begin at your leisure.

Chief Arthur Manuel (Neskonlith Indian Band; Shuswap Nation Tribal Council): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good afternoon, honourable committee members.

I suppose we should consider ourselves fortunate to have the marvels of modern technology at our disposal in times like this; however, I must say this specially arranged video conference would not be necessary if it were not for the unseemly haste surrounding the passage of this misguided piece of legislation.

We had expected, based upon the word of the Minister of Indian Affairs, to have had the time and opportunity to thoroughly canvass the provisions of this legislation. We had expected to have been accorded the respect and consideration due to us by the Parliament of Canada when contemplating the passage of legislation that will have serious implications in our lives. We had thought the committee would visit our territory and sit down with us - our chiefs and councils and people - and thoroughly discuss the merits or shortcomings of the legislation, clause by clause and face to face.

We have very serious misgivings about this ridiculously abbreviated legislative process that is being forced down our throats. In the few minutes allotted to me, it would be impossible to deal with the possible implications of the legislation on a clause-by-clause basis. While I will comment on one or two provisions, it does not do justice to the issues that are so important to our communities and peoples to view these provisions outside the context in which they may come into being and force.

.1625

This legislation must be viewed at least in the context of the Indian Act, the Constitution Act, and the inherent right to self-government, supposedly endorsed by the Government of Canada, and most certainly in the context of the recently released report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples.

That the Minister of Indian Affairs has chosen to rush this legislation through in the face of its overwhelming rejection by the vast majority of first nations leadership, which has been documented through our Assembly of First Nations, clearly illustrates that the paternalism so prevalent in our past relations with the Government of Canada still underlines official government policy.

This Minister of Indian Affairs has no respect whatsoever for first nations institutions, nor does he respect the views of first nations leaders unless those views somehow coincide with his views and those of his departmental officials.

I understand the minister clearly expounded his 19th-century paternalistic philosophy to this committee last week when he characterized first nations leadership as falling within three categories, and I paraphrase: those first nations leaders who have the ability and skills and the commitment, presumably to support his legislation; those who don't have all those skills, but who have enough knowledge to recognize the ones who are moving ahead; and finally those with a mindset in the past, who are essentially backwards. The minister characterized the latter group as mindlessly clinging to the Indian Act.

When I was elected chief of my community, it was never with a mandate to seek amendments to the Indian Act. The problems faced by my community - poverty, unemployment, and lack of opportunities - are not primarily the result of the Indian Act. That legislation is mainly concerned with governance of reserve lands.

The problems faced by my community are not merely problems with the governance of our 6,700 acres of reserve lands. Our problems are the result of the totally inadequate 6,700-acre land base, which has resulted in the grinding poverty and lack of opportunity faced by my people on a daily basis.

Our problems must be addressed by the settlement of the land question, and our focus has been fixed upon that goal. At this time it makes no sense for us to seek additional powers to those currently in the Indian Act. We need no further powers to administer over our poverty.

When the minister sent out letters respecting his legislative initiative for my community and the mandate of my council, the correspondence generated no real, practical interest. I can certainly appreciate that the amendments may be useful for some Indian bands with economically valuable and viable land holdings, but the minister's selective consultation is not the process through which such changes ought to be generated.

Some of you may be aware of the last substantive changes made to the Indian Act in 1988, called, I believe, Bill C-115 at that time. It has come to be known as the Kamloops Amendments. The process for the changes made through that amendment was driven by the Kamloops Indian Band of the Shuswap Nation, principally by Chief Manny Jules and his council.

The changes sought were of tremendous practical importance to that community and to other bands in similar circumstances. Through those amendments, substantial taxation resources were reclaimed by first nations communities, which resources had previously been taken by provincial property taxation authorities exercising jurisdiction on Indian lands.

.1630

Chief Jules spoke to many first nations leaders across the country on many occasions over a period of years, explaining the issues and gathering support for the necessary changes. Through the efforts of Chief Jules and his council, some 150 band council resolutions were passed and forwarded to the Assembly of First Nations and to the Minister of Indian Affairs. Chief Jules sought and received the endorsement of the Assembly of First Nations for the proposed changes to the Indian Act, which resolution was debated by the chiefs in our assembly. The actual legislation was developed in close consultation with the first nations proponents.

That process, Mr. Chairman, was beyond question a legitimate and dynamic one, driven by first nations leadership and debated within and endorsed by our legitimate political institutions. There is a world of difference between that process and the process that has led to Bill C-79. That process also clearly demonstrates that the Assembly of First Nations is quite capable of performing a positive role for change in the legislative process and in other processes affecting the relationship between first nations and the Government of Canada.

But that can only happen if our first nations political institutions are respected by the ministers of the crown. It is totally inappropriate for the minister to attack and denigrate our national organization.

The Neskonlith Indian Band is in full support of the submission made to this committee by the Assembly of First Nations. Far from squandering his mandate, our national chief has scrupulously followed the mandate by not capitulating to the heavy-handed legislative initiatives of the Minister of Indian Affairs.

Our national chief receives these mandates from the chiefs and assembly, and the chiefs and assembly have not endorsed any piecemeal amendments to the Indian Act. Clearly, the minister does not appreciate or respect our first nations political process and is confusing his agenda with the mandate of our national organization.

I'll turn now to some brief observations concerning some of the provisions of the bill.

The minister places great emphasis on the optional nature of the legislation, but it is a one-way street, and that presents a serious danger to first nations communities. While the minister states that there will be no penalties for not opting in and no prizes for opting in, the fact remains that the Indian Affairs department has all the means and all the power and resources at its disposal to exercise undue influence on our communities, if its officials deem it in their interest to do so.

Meanwhile, communities such as mine, the Neskonlith Indian Band, which derives 96% of it revenue through federal transfers, are extremely vulnerable to such pressures, given that the Indian Affairs bureaucracy has been busily setting the agenda for redefining the fiscal relationships between the federal government and first nations communities and given the hair-trigger mechanism for opting in, which is a simple band council resolution. It is particularly troublesome given the irreversible nature of the decision.

By contrast, the requirements that first nations must meet for adopting custom election regulations and for designing lands are more onerous, involving the holding of plebiscites or referenda. Surely this irreversible legislation, which is certainly controversial in its rationale and potential impact, ought to have a higher threshold of opting in. The fact that it doesn't just confirms my suspicion that the minister and the Department of Indian Affairs want to make it easy for bands to fall into the trap.

The Parliament of Canada and this committee in particular have a positive duty to ensure that this or any legislation that comes before it does not derogate from the rights of first nations, which are recognized and affirmed under section 35 of the Constitution Act. One such right, as has been publicly acknowledged by the government, is the inherent right of self-government in its broadest sense.

.1635

This bill is a thinly disguised effort to entrap first nations communities into accepting watered-down, delegated authority. The acceptance of such delegated authority, notwithstanding that it was put forth as an interim arrangement pending inherent-rights negotiations, may widely be interpreted as an exercise of the inherent right. All the federal government needs to do is terminate the inherent-rights negotiation process and the first nations that have opted in will be left at the dead end of a one-way street.

You may say that there is a non-derogation clause ostensibly included to allay precisely the point raised above. However, the wording of that clause refers only to the Indian Act, not to the Indian Act Optional Modification Act itself.

This committee is under a positive duty to look beyond the statements of the minister to view this legislation in its broader context and to see the whole picture. To do otherwise would be a breach of the obligation under the Constitution of Canada.

On behalf of my community and nation, I must say that in no way are we consenting to this legislation or to any process that perpetuates the assimilationist agenda of the Minister of Indian Affairs and his department.

We are not living in the past, nor do we cling to the Indian Act. We call upon this committee to recommend to your House of Commons that this misguided legislation should be withdrawn and that the government should reassess its approach to the consultation process for changes to the Indian legislation based on a genuine nation-to-nation, government-to-government bilateral relationship. Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Wayne Haimila, could we hear your presentation, please?

Mr. Wayne Haimila (Director, Intergovernmental Affairs, Shuswap Nation Tribal Council): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon.

The Shuswap Nation Tribal Council, or SNTC, represents the following Shuswap communities: Adams Lake Band, Bonaparte Band, High Bar Band, Kamloops Band, Neskonlith Band, North Thompson Band, Skeetchestn Band, and Whispering Pines Band.

On December 4, 1996, the SNTC council of chiefs passed the following resolution:

Moved by Chief Ron Ignatz, seconded by Chief Ron Jules

Whereas the Shuswap Nation Tribal Council opposes unilateral amendments of the Indian Act proposed by the Minister of Indian Affairs;

Therefore be it resolved that the Shuswap Nation Tribal Council reaffirm support for the resolution moved by Chief Arthur Manuel and seconded by Chief Eugene Anaquod at the AFN chiefs meeting in Winnipeg (September, 1996).

The resolution of the Assembly of First Nations, among other things, rejects Indian Act amendments as not being a priority to first nations. It rejects the process undertaken by the Minister of Indian Affairs to develop the legislation before you today, which is the Indian Act Optional Modification Act.

The resolution of the AFN also called for discussions with the Government of Canada on a bilateral basis to address the priority issues of first nations, including the implementation of inherent aboriginal and treaty rights. As well, the AFN resolution set up a committee of chiefs to work toward more appropriate processes and to try to prevent the unilateral enactment of this legislation.

It is apparent that the will of the first nations leadership is being almost totally ignored by the Parliament of Canada given the apparent intention of the executive branch of this government to use such tactics as these abbreviated committee hearings.

The Shuswap Nation Tribal Council has had neither the time nor the resources to properly study the proposed legislation before us today. However, it is clear that this legislation does not reflect the priorities of our chiefs and communities.

The first priority for the Shuswap communities is the settlement of the land question. This has been a longstanding priority. In 1910 the Shuswap chiefs, along with the leaders from our neighbouring nations, presented a memorial to our then prime minister, Sir Wilfrid Laurier. That memorial reflects and informs the priorities of the Shuswap leadership to this day. What is called for is the negotiation of a treaty to settle the land question and to set forth a resolution of all important matters between the Government of Canada and the Shuswap Nation, including matters of governance. It speaks of the establishment of a relationship between equals based upon mutual respect, a nation-to-nation relationship.

.1640

The Indian Act is an archaic piece of legislation based upon false notions of racial superiority, and it is used to justify intrusions on first nation societies and dismemberment of first nations institutions. To continue to tinker with it is to perpetuate its continued use by the Government of Canada. This would only serve to perpetuate the unacceptable shackles that have bound the communities of our nation for so long. It is time to stop tinkering with these instruments of assimilation and colonization.

It is apparent that the Minister of Indian Affairs is preoccupied with the passage of this legislation at any cost. But the longer our nations are shackled by such colonial instruments, the greater the cost will be to first nations peoples and to Canada. This legislation in no way reflects what the Shuswap people have been striving for, nor does it come close to approximating those goals. What it does reflect is the agenda of the minister and the Department of Indian Affairs, and of the government and Parliament of Canada. It reflects the high-water mark for self-government in the immediate future.

Many first nations communities in B.C. are preoccupied with the treaty commission process. They are therefore not very interested in this legislation. They most likely harbour the false assumptions that they will be able to achieve self-government agreements that will stand outside of existing legislation. However, federal negotiators do not have the mandate to recognize or acknowledge inherent or constitutionally entrenched self-government rights. Any Indian self-government agreements will therefore be limited to the kinds of delegated authority contemplated within this bill - again, the high-water mark for self-government.

The Parliament of Canada has fiduciary obligations to first nations in order to ensure that it does not enact legislation that violates constitutional rights of first nations. In its deliberations, Parliament must give effect to the provisions of the Constitution of Canada, particularly section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

The inherent right of self-government, which is supposedly recognized by the Government of Canada, must be addressed when considering this bill. The question that must be asked is whether or not this legislation reflects that inherent right. We see that it certainly does not; it is merely a continuation of the colonial legacy of the Indian Act.

It is the duty of this committee to satisfy itself that the Indian Act Optional Modification Act does not violate the constitutional rights of the Indian peoples. Instead of perpetuating the Indian Act and its legacies, it is necessary to seriously begin to establish a new relationship, to forget about tinkering with the totally discredited colonial legacy of the Indian Act and to replace the Department of Indian Affairs and the Indian Act with new legislation and new departments that are based upon the recognition of the inherent right of first nations to self-government. An obvious starting point would be to seriously consider and act upon the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, a report that is now in the hands of Parliament. We call upon this committee to recommend the withdrawal of Bill C-79.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much for your presentation.

We will now proceed to questions by members. Who will be first?

.1645

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand: Mr. Manuel, thank you for your presentation. I have been to British Columbia a number of times to meet the First Nations. Unfortunately, I have never had the pleasure of meeting you, but rest assured that I will write to you to make sure we can meet the next time I am there. You made an excellent presentation and were certainly a good spokesperson for your First Nation.

It is clear to me that you object to Bill C-79. The Bloc Québécois's position is similar to yours.

You didn't mention the British Columbia Treaties Commission but you did say that the matter of land and territorial claims had to be settled first. I know that this is the work being done by a British Columbia commission but I don't know whether your committee is part of this effort. In your opinion, does Bill C-79 have negative effects on the British Columbia Treaties Commission?

It is doing a number of interesting things. Between Christmas and New Year's Day last year I met the six commissioners and I found out that there are six stages leading to a final settlement. Various communities have opted in and things are going very well. Isn't that the way to reach a solution? Isn't the commission examining the way in which the First Nations of British Columbia can come to a settlement? Isn't this approach preferable to a bill modifying a 100-years-old Act?

I'd like to know whether your community registered with the British Columbia Treaties Commission and whether you consider it to be a better solution than a bill amending the outmoded Indian Act?

[English]

Chief Manuel: The Neskonlith Band does not participate in the B.C. Treaty Commission process. All the Shuswap Nation Tribal Council bands have sat down together and looked at the process, and we feel the B.C. Treaty Commission has a number of flaws.

One of the flaws is that it still tries to achieve as an objective the extinguishment of aboriginal titles, and we do not agree with that.

Another aspect is that they require borrowing of the money to do a lot of the research and negotiations. We feel that results in putting your claim and your land rights in jeopardy, because you're mortgaging them in a process and you have to pay that back. As the bills accumulate, you become more and more subject to the duress of the process itself. So we don't go along with that.

What we are seeking, though, are changes to the process, whether it be that particular process or some other process that will replace it, to deal effectively with the land question.

Land is the basis of any government, and with an Indian reserve such as mine, which has 6,700 acres, some of it straight up and down on the side of a hill, the land is not adequate and never has been adequate. Some studies have said the land base on Indian reserves was exhausted of its natural resources at the turn of the century, in 1900. So it's been nearly 100 years that our postage stamp-size Indian reserves have been inadequate for the population that lives on them. That's a great travesty of justice.

.1650

We as first nations people, the original inhabitants of this land, have had our lands reduced to 6,700 acres. We can't survive on that. We can't build an independent, self-sufficient government on that land base. It's just impossible. Nobody could do that. The brightest people couldn't do that. It's very difficult for us, as a population of some 500 people, to be able to expect that to happen on that land.

So it doesn't matter what kinds of changes or tinkering with the Indian Act go on. If we don't have a settlement on the land question, all the changes in the world to the Indian Act are not going to change in any meaningful way the social problems or ameliorate the social problems that exist in our community.

The government has to deal with that. That's the position our elders have taken in the past with regard to amending the Indian Act. They have always said we do not want to amend the Indian Act. We want to deal with the land question first and then we'll get to the issue of governance when the time comes.

If you mess with the Indian Act as it is now, you're changing a lot of legal relationships that we as Indian people may not really comprehend the full implications of, especially when the federal government is intent, on a policy basis, to talk about governance in terms of municipal-type governments and band-type governments.

We need to realize that Neskonlith, as an Indian band, is a creature of colonial policy. Indian bands, the Indian Act, and the whole system were put in place in order to destroy the Shuswap Nation, the total nation of the Shuswap people, and to make Indian people think in terms of small, little bands and small, little parcels of land so the provincial government and the federal government could exploit all the land in between the small parcels of Indian reserved land. If you continue to try to build on that Indian band system, to try to tinker with and change that, all you're doing is continuing to perpetuate the problem.

We need to rethink our whole relationship, not in terms of Indian bands and the federal government, but in terms of the Shuswap Nation and the federal government. As the Shuswap Nation, we need to think about a land base and a governance system that is not based on the municipal model.

You don't give the protection of the French identity to the City of Quebec, the City of Montreal, Rouyn-Noranda, or Val-d'Or. Those aren't the governments that protect the integrity of the French language and French culture. Nor should we do that with just Indian bands - expect that our culture and our language are going to be able to be protected by Neskonlith itself.

What we need is recognition of our national, organic entity and an understanding that it's with the nation that Canada has a relationship. It is with the collective of the Shuswap people that you have a relationship. It's only through the collective - it's only through all of the Shuswap people who make up the Shuswap Nation - that we will have the strength and the resources to be able to ensure that our identity as Shuswap people will develop positively and become part of a strong Canadian identity. That's what we're looking at in terms of developing on that level.

.1655

That is another thing we disagree with - a treaty commission - because it follows the band process. They would consider me the Neskonlith First Nation. Neskonlith is not a first nation. It's the Shuswap Nation that's the first nation. That's why we still consider ourselves a band. It's the Neskonlith Band or the Neskonlith tribe. The word Neskonlith comes from our first chief, who made an agreement. He was the chief in the 1860s. The band got its name from Chief Neskonlith. That's where that comes from. He was not a first nation unto himself.

I think the federal government and the provincial government have been doing a lot of things in terms of taking words that we as Indian people have been trying to define, words like ``self-government'', ``inherent right to self-government'' and ``first nation'', and trying to redefine those words in terms of their assimilationist policies.

And then they're trying to soft-sell it to the general public by saying, ``General public, we're listening to these Indian people. We're doing exactly what they want and they're rejecting what we're trying to propose.'' They're saying that to us, as Indian people, and they're saying it to the general public to try to create hostility towards us, to try to make us look stupid in the eyes of the general public. They're doing that with first nations. They're doing that with all of these other things.

We need to think in terms of treaties and nation-to-nation relationships, in terms of the Shuswap Nation as a whole in a relationship with the Government of Canada. That's where we need to start. And once we deal with the land question, then we can deal with the issues of governance, because the questions of governance will be defined by the amount of land that we get back as ours.

For instance, I believe the federal government is obligated now to provide medical services, educational services and all of these other services because we don't have the land base to support those services ourselves. We don't have the fish resources. We don't have water resources.

But if a land settlement is negotiated where we do get the land base to support those kinds of services, the nation-to-nation agreement between us will say, ``We recognize you as holding so much land that you can provide for health care for at least 6,000 or 7,000 people from that land base. There are enough forest resources there. There are enough mineral resources. You will be able to be self-supporting in the area of health care, and maybe in the area of education, maybe 40% of education.''

The governance agreement would reflect that, because if it's a very small land settlement the government is going to have to continue to substantially support - in perpetuity - health care, education, housing and other things that can't be supported by the land we're talking about in terms of a settlement.

It's incumbent when we're talking about governance to talk about land, because governance without land is talking in the abstract. It's hypothetical. It has no substance. I don't want to talk in those terms and get trapped into accepting responsibilities and jurisdiction and having my land base remain the same. I can't do that to my people.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Are there any other questions from members? Mr. Steckle.

Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron - Bruce, Lib.): Yes, Mr. Chairman.

I'm a member from Ontario.

The question I have for you has to do with the opting in and, of course, with the inability to opt out. In September 1996, the package of amendments that would have amended the Indian Act for all first nations at that time would, rather than proposing less comprehensive and optimal sorts of changes compared to Bill C-79.... As it presently reads, the bill would place the power to opt in to these modifications with the councils of first nations. The Assembly of First Nations has suggested that in practice the first nations may be forced to opt in.

.1700

If the federal government programs and policies provide incentives for those bands that choose to adopt those modifications, what are your views on the optional scheme proposed in Bill C-79? And was your department consulted on this matter? That's the first question.

Would you also comment on the absence of an opting-out mechanism in Bill C-79?

Chief Manuel: The thing that makes me suspicious -

Let's start from the beginning. The Department of Indian Affairs is probably one of the most mistrusted departments of the federal government, from my point of view as a chief and as a leader who has to deal on a daily basis with that department. We're always having little problems with that department.

My father was chief of our reserve and he had the same problem. My father has now passed on. We've always had these problems with the Department of Indian Affairs. The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, from a historical perspective, goes through that history quite well and basically comes to the conclusion that the Department of Indian Affairs has really soured or spoiled the relationship between first nations and government.

So when we talk about the Department of Indian Affairs, you need to understand, from my heart, where I'm coming from. Emotionally and psychologically, where I'm coming from is I have a fair amount of suspicion.

I'm not paranoid, because the definition of paranoid is that you just think somebody is after you. In this case the department is really after you. They really are manipulating things. So I'm not being paranoid or stuck in the past or any of these other things; I'm living here today with problems that have been created by the department, trying to find solutions, and not getting the kind of help I need from that department. And that happens on a daily basis.

When I see some of my young people on the reserve really suffering from family violence - let's say, for instance, it has its roots in the Kamloops Indian residential school - and I have to try to resolve this problem -

Say this young person is 10 years old and is in a public school system, and he's really having problems with the teacher and the school system and has been kicked out. When I'm trying to find solutions for this young person to get his life on track and help make him self-supporting, if I'm caught with no help from the federal government, or the Department of Indian Affairs in particular, to deal with that legacy of tragedy, I feel a lot of acrimony towards the department at that point in time, sitting with that young person in a room like this and really feeling helpless.

When I say the Department of Indian Affairs really doesn't understand the problems and the kinds of solutions that I as chief am trying to work on, I mean it, and I'm not living in the past, because that's happening every day. As a chief, I have about eight kids let down on my reserve. Every day I'm talking to the principal at Chase, Mr. Kipp from Haldane School, and these are just little kids I'm dealing with.

I'm dealing with the here and now. I have no chance to think about the past. Those problems were created by previous Department of Indian Affairs policies. I am living with the legacy of that today, trying to solve problems to make people's lives better for them in the future.

So when the federal government comes to me and says ``Trust us; we have this package here of legislation, Indian Act amendments''.... And remember that when they first threw these amendments on the table, they weren't optional; they were mandatory. They would have been mandatory if Indian people and Indian chiefs hadn't objected to them.

So in their ultimate wisdom, those officials thought, on my behalf and on behalf of that group of eight ten-year-olds, that they had the solution, that they had legislative provisions that were going to take better care of us at the community level. They thought so much of their plan that they were going to make it mandatory. It was only after the chiefs, through the Assembly of First Nations, rejected the whole package that they made it optional - only after that. So I don't think they've changed their minds about those provisions in that optional bill.

.1705

They actually think that they're good for us. When I was reviewing the minister's speech, I thought he was very paternalistic. He was saying that these Indians really don't even know what's good for them: these poor Indians, they're so backward and so caught in the past that they don't even know what's good for them; I'm going to go ahead and try to help them out. So in order to get his plan into legislative stone, he's going to make it optional. He knows that he's right and that sooner or later every band in Canada is going to be in this process.

I know, as a chief, that when I deal with the Department of Indian Affairs, I am always dealing with it from a position of powerlessness. In a few days from now we're going to be entering into what they call the budget negotiation process with the Department of Indian Affairs. It's a real joke when they say ``negotiations'', because they don't negotiate with us. They come out and they put out the numbers. ``This is it, Chief. This is all you have to work with this year.'' I have no choice. I sit there. I can't negotiate up. I probably could negotiate down, but I couldn't negotiate up from that figure.

So I'm forced to sign on a dotted line, whether I like it or not, the budget for 1997-98. I'll be doing that in a couple of days. But I'm always caught in that position as a chief. What I'm saying is that the Department of Indian Affairs has a lot of power.

Now the federal government says to me, as it has been saying in terms of demonstration housing lately - it has this new program called demonstration housing.... The government tells me that if I get involved in this demonstration housing, I'm going to get x dollars. I need to do this, this, and this in terms of my administration. If I follow the line here, I'm going to get this extra pot of money.

A lot of times chiefs are caught in that position, and because we're so dependent on the Department of Indian Affairs, a lot of chiefs have to cave in to that kind of duress and that kind of pressure.

I think when you put that kind of power and powerlessness together - and you can think about it in practical terms - this opting in becomes a bit of a joke, because when they start talking about reprioritizing and reallocating finances and budgets within the department and they start putting some money under the optional provisions of the Indian Act, they will be going around telling the chiefs that if they opt in, this will be what they're going to get extra.

That's how they're going to manage and manipulate the chiefs of this country. There's no question in my mind that they're going to do that, because they've done that in the past. I think the opting in is really nothing more than an interim measure in the ultimate objective of forcing Indian people and Indian chiefs to opt in to this legislation.

The Chairman: Do any other members wish to participate? Mr. Harper.

Mr. Elijah Harper: How much time do we have?

The Chairman: We have until the bells. I should mention, Mr. Harper, that the camera is not picking you up at the end. If you wish to be in the frame, you'll have to move to this end of the table, but it's up to you.

Mr. Elijah Harper: I think they can see me.

The Chairman: I don't think so. They don't see you. They know you well enough. The floor is yours.

.1710

Mr. Elijah Harper: Arthur, this is Elijah speaking. You can't see me, but you can probably hear me. Nod if you can hear me. I see you.

I'm here at the hearings, and also I heard your presentation very well. You talked about being in a position of powerlessness. I know that feeling. I've also been a chief, and I've been involved in this process for a long time.

You may wonder how I function, how I manage to survive, and how I am able to sleep and try to protect the rights of our people. It's not easy, especially when you're elected and are in a position in this institution - a non-aboriginal institution. I try my best to represent our people.

The legislation that is before you.... I know it's causing a lot of concern. There's a lot of misunderstanding about the legislation. I have spoken to many people across Canada, and there are people who would even suggest that the Indian Act is a source of our rights, which is not true at all.

I just want to say that there are people who want the Indian Act changed, there are people who don't want it changed it all, and there are people who want it changed gradually. There are all kinds of people with different positions.

My feeling is at the end of this process.... As I said before to another presenter, I have every confidence in our people and in our ability to survive this process. It's not going to be the determination of the government or the Department of Indian Affairs. It's going to be determined by our people. We've gone this far, we've survived this far, and we're going to continue to survive.

I'm involved in this process because I believe you can make changes from within. It's very slow and very frustrating. I do a lot of educating to a lot of the people. What it entails is not only educating people or changing people. What you're dealing with are institutions that have been here for a long time. It's going to take a while to do that.

I've met you before, and I have a lot of respect for your wisdom. The words that you spoke today certainly illustrate how eloquent you are and how representative you are of your people.

I just want to let you know that.... I know we don't have very much time. I wish there had been much more time to discuss the whole process. This is only the Indian Act amendment process. I think we have a better approach, which is the treaty approach - the nation approach - and which I hope will continue to be the focus. Even though there might be some amendments or changes to the Indian Act, I've always believed that the Constitution - the treaty of rights - would always be paramount in terms of our rights as aboriginal people, as first nations people. Those rights will always be upheld no matter what. This is my belief.

As I said, I wish I could spend more time talking about some of the things you've talked about, because I have similar ideas and commitments. I can talk about the negotiations you're mentioning with Indian Affairs, although they are not really negotiations. I can talk about the relationship we should have with the federal government in terms of financial, treaty, and aboriginal rights. We don't have much time to do that now, but at some point I would like to meet with you to talk to you on some of those issues.

I just want to thank you for your comments.

The Chairman: Anyone else? Yes, Mr. Steckle.

Mr. Paul Steckle: I would like to go back to the paternalism issue. I think the minister has readily admitted in the past that the Indian Act is paternalistic. In Bill C-79 there's an attempt made, I believe, to alleviate some of the most paternalistic Indian Act provisions by giving your bands and band councils some new powers. Wouldn't you agree that this is a measure going a long way in the right direction? How do you view those changes?

.1715

Chief Manuel: I view those changes as being a step in the same direction that the department has always been marching towards, that of assimilation. I think the whole relationship between first nations, including the Shuswap Nation, and the Canadian government has been so contaminated by Indian Affairs policy that we need to rethink the whole relationship. We need to think about it in terms of replacing the Department of Indian Affairs and replacing the Indian Act with legislation and processes that really recognize and respect the inherent right of the first nations as encapsulated under section 35 of the Constitution Act. We need to rethink that.

Simply trying to repeal some so-called anachronisms, some embarrassing provisions that Canada had enacted in the past, and trying to loosen the grip of the department over our lives is not sufficient. I think too much energy is being used to try to change something. That kind of alchemy does not exist.

The relationship has been so soured and so destroyed by former department policy that we need to look at it in terms of a new start, a fresh start. If we go ahead and just tinker with the act, trying to improve its appearance a little bit between the sow's ear and the silk purse, I think we're wasting our time. We're fooling ourselves as chiefs that we're really going to get anything meaningful for our people out of it.

I would rather see the energy, the resources and the power of the Canadian government utilized more in line with looking at a really new bilateral relationship based upon recognition and respect of our inherent right to govern ourselves, as defined by us and negotiated between us and Canada. I think that is what we're looking for.

I really have better things to do than to sit in this room at 800 Burrard Street in Vancouver to talk negatively towards something. I'd rather be talking positively about something, putting my energies to that. I really don't like being put in this position.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Murphy): Thank you.

We want to thank you, Chief Arthur Manuel, and your colleagues, for being with us. I know this is somewhat of a foreign communication link, but it's what we have to live with at the moment.

So thank you for appearing before us. You certainly are very articulate and did a very good job presenting your side of the issues.

.1720

Welcome, Chief Barry Seymour, to our hearing. We're pleased to have you with us.

We'll allow about forty minutes for your presentation. That presentation, of course, can include a discussion and questions from the members around the table. If you would like to start, we'll be pleased to hear your presentation.

Chief Barry Seymour (Lheidli T'Enneh Band): My name is Tuzyan. For the purposes of this presentation, you can refer to me as Chief Barry Seymour.

I'm the recently re-elected chief of the Lheidli T'Enneh Band. We are the people from the confluence of two rivers, the Fraser and the Nechako.

It is my pleasure to appear before the standing committee, if only by teleconference. While this method may be high tech, it is nevertheless somewhat artificial. It is, of course, better than no input at all.

I want to make it clear at the start that the Lheidli T'Enneh Band welcomes the amendments incorporated in Bill C-79 as reasonable, long-overdue changes to the Indian Act.

The Indian Act has, for far too many years, controlled the lives of our people at the community level. It has always been strange to me how a piece of federal legislation administered from afar can control our lives for our benefit.

Obviously, it has never done so. Bureaucrats in Vancouver or as far away as Ottawa have had more decision-making power on my reserve than I or any chief who has preceded me. The Indian Act in its entirety must be scrapped.

We are now less than three years away from the turn of the century, yet our people are still saddled with a piece of legislation that dictates nearly every aspect of their lives. We know that we will never be free until we remove this cloak of colonialism from our shoulders. We know, as the Penner report so eloquently put it, that we must rid this monkey from our backs.

How is this to be done? We could have followed the recommendations in the Penner Report and we would be out of this situation today. We could have had the courage to go further with the constitutional amendments and guaranteed the inherent right to self-government that enshrined aboriginal title and treaty rights.

We did not do this. Even today, we have yet to act on the recommendations of the very expensive royal commission report.

What can and should we do? We can certainly produce some change. We should move toward a situation in this country in which aboriginal people are free.

These amendments, in the opinion of the Lheidli T'Enneh Band, make a tiny, but important, step forward. We know they will benefit us. We are interested in the day-to-day progress of our people. We are not interested in the political games played by some national leaders, nor in the grandstanding of those Indian leaders who want to be national leaders.

It is far too easy to oppose something. It is much more difficult to support change without resorting to negativity that so effects Indian business.

Our people do not want to be negative. Others may call us naive if they wish, but we believe Minister Ron Irwin when he says that these amendments are but one small step on a move forward to implement the recognition of the inherent right of first nations to govern their own affairs.

I have not been involved in native Indian politics as long as some, but I have been involved long enough to know that being opposed to every option leads nowhere. I sometimes wonder if being opposed to everything is simply a career unto itself. I sometimes wonder if native Indian politics at the provincial and national level is simply an industry with no product.

.1725

For myself and for my members, we are committed to producing change for our people. We applaud the minister and his department in defining these amendments as short-term. They are only a small step towards our goal.

We are also very clear about the fact that none of the potential amendments affects aboriginal or treaty rights or alters the government's fundamental fiduciary relationship with first nations. Make no mistake about it; the Lheidli T'Enneh Band is negotiating a treaty for our land, our resources, and our self-government that will see us free of the Indian Act.

We are negotiating a new relationship with the federal government, the provincial government, and the citizens of this country. Only foolish people would want to rewrite the Indian Act as a basis to our future self-government. We are not foolish. Our treaty negotiations will produce a new governance system that will not in any way reflect the paternalistic, colonial act under which we presently suffer.

For us, most of these amendments are simply housekeeping measures to remove anachronisms. With all due respect to those opposed to the amendments, this is not rocket science or the Sermon on the Mount. These amendments will make it easier for us to conduct our business on a day-to-day basis. They are no answer in themselves; they are no panacea. They are no threat to aboriginal title or treaty rights; they are no threat to our culture or our Indianness.

It is true that these amendments could be viewed as concessions made by a warden who has aboriginal people in prison. Just as Bill Wilson stated, we are not interested in a larger cell with a better view; we are interested in kicking down the walls of our prison and escaping to freedom. Freedom will always be our goal, and this is the basis of our treaty negotiations and our real self-government effort outside the Indian Act.

If in the meantime, however, beneficial changes can be made to our condition that will help our people at the community level, then we will take advantage of them. We are going to get out of this prison regardless.

On this one, we support the Minister of Indian Affairs, Mr. Ron Irwin. We do not see phantoms or dragons hiding within this legislation. We choose at this time to trust the minister. Trust in fact may be the ingredient that has been missing for far too many years.

We want to thank the standing committee and the hon. members. We look forward to building a better relationship, which must be based on mutual respect and dignity. We will fight for our freedom forever, but we believe much of the fighting and controversy is non-productive.

I thank you for this opportunity to appear before you on behalf of my people. I'm willing to answer your questions.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Murphy): Thank you very much, Chief Seymour.

We will start with questions. Claude Bachand from the Bloc Québécois.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand: Mr. Seymour, you are the first Aboriginal speaker in favour of the proposed amendments. If you agree with the amendment, what do you think of the fact that any possibility of opting out will be excluded once you have accepted? Aren't you rather afraid of leaping into the unknown and finding out one day that it isn't to your liking and there's no way of getting out?

I'd also like your opinion on the fact that First Nations are now given the legal status of a person. I thought the that the First Nations considered themselves to be nations and not legal persons. What do you think of the legal status resulting from the changes we are dealing with?

.1730

In your presentation you objected a position taken by one of your colleagues who is a member of your committee and for whom I have a great deal of admiration, Mr. Harper. In his book Mr. Harper said that the Indian Act was a prison and amending this Act would be nothing but lengthening the chain. You do not agree with this statement; in your view the Indian Act is not a prison and the changes proposed do not lengthen the chain. You believe the amendments are positive and constitute a way of getting out of your present situation.

You also say that you trust in the minister and that the period of mistrust is over. But most of those who have spoken, and I tend to agree with them, have regularly been swindled by ministers and governments. Why after being swindled for 300 or 400 years, do you think today that a new minister coming up with this proposal should inspire trust rather than lack of confidence and that the minister's amendments should be accepted immediately?

Explain to me why, from one day to the next, a First Nation such as yours should put its trust in the Minister of Indian Affairs who is merely the last in a line of ministers who have done nothing but disappoint, disapprove and confine within the prison of the Indian Act all of your predecessors and ancestors?

[English]

Chief Seymour: I'll start from the last question and work backwards. In relation to the trust of the minister, I guess I am not one to cry over spilled milk. I like to look at things from an optimistic viewpoint. The changes within the Indian Act, as I indicated, are just minor changes, from my point of view, basically housekeeping.

Our nation currently is in the treaty negotiation process here in British Columbia. It is our nation's desire that the treaty we conclude with the federal and provincial governments will replace the Indian Act. So we look at these amendments as having only a short-term impact in our communities.

Sure, the Indian Act itself has imprisoned first nations since contact, or since the Indian Act has been developed. As I indicated earlier, the Indian Act in itself should be wiped out, almost like the Indians.

I'll have to in a sense agree with Elijah that, yes, at this point the changes are basically lengthening the chain. However, it does give us an opportunity to move forward in certain areas at the band level. Being community-oriented myself, and having to work within my community, having to experience the day-to-day issues my people face, any positive change is helpful to our situation.

I do not believe these changes are a solution for the future. However, it's a step forward.

Thank you.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Murphy): Thank you, Chief.

Elijah Harper would like to ask you a question.

Mr. Elijah Harper: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

.1735

Chief Seymour, you made reference to my statement in terms of the Indian Act, that if any changes are made to the Indian Act it's only extending the chains. I believe that. I truly believe that. But I also believe if you're going to make some changes you have to start from somewhere.

I believe recognition of aboriginal people to have the inherent right to self-government, full recognition within the Canadian Constitution, is coming. I've never been the one to be negative. I can't afford to be negative. I've always held that view. I have to be positive no matter what.

I've always held the views or the intentions of people as honourable. I've never viewed people as purposely doing wrong to an individual or to a nation. This is the belief I have, the teachings I have, from my elders, and certainly from my community.

You view this as being a small step in trying to achieve self-government, inherent right and all those things that come with it. It's a small step. I've also stated that the journey we've made in the last 500 years may be only an inch, but it's progress.

I feel frustration as an aboriginal member of Parliament, as an aboriginal leader, but we still have to continue in that journey. I taken up a lot of issues on many things, but I've never been one to give up. I could have resigned many times, a thousand times, on many things, but it takes courage to do that. I know a lot of people won't agree with it, but it is a small step.

I know the future hangs in the treaties you are talking about. I hope that will be the vehicle in which to pursue the relationship you have with the federal government, nation to nation, a relationship in which we'll be able to establish our relationships, either the financial relationship, treaty relationship or aboriginal rights, with the federal government on that basis. I've always kept that goal as the ultimate goal in terms of finally achieving that relationship and implementing it. That's what drives me to keep going, not to give up.

Is that view, in terms of that treaty process, the same process you have in mind, that it will be the vehicle that will lead ultimately to this nation-to-nation, government-to-government relationship with the federal government? It's not the one we're envisioning here under the Indian Act. That relationship at some point will ultimately be gone. It has to be. I know that's the goal everybody's trying to achieve. So I see that as becoming reality in the future. Is that your view also? That's my question to you.

.1740

Chief Seymour: To put it simply, Elijah, we view the treaty process as providing us with the ability to be the captains of our own ships. Throughout the last fifteen years, I have never given up on any goal that I've established for myself. Our nation is committed to working towards the establishment of a treaty within the next five years. At the table with the federal and provincial governments, we have endorsed the goal of working towards that.

I know that at times it has been very difficult for aboriginal people in the past. I live in a community in which we are both rural and urban. Our numbers are at only 250 at this time; however, there are 7,000 aboriginal people in the urban community we're attached to. I've worked for many different organizations. In the one preceding the one I'm with now, the Friendship Centre, I was exposed first-hand to many of the problems that we face. I am saddened to see our young women working the streets from the age of 12 and up.

I believe our current situation has been created over many years by the policy imposed on us. It's going to take time for us to make any real changes. It's going to take commitment from people such as yourselves, me, and the people of the community. Like you, I've never given up. Even at the times when the situation seems hopeless, the one positive thing that may occur that day, that week, or that month is what makes it worth while.

The changes to the Indian Act are minor in nature. However, I look at any change that increases our capacity to deal with the issues we deal with as positive, if that change allows us to do so at the community level and on a day-to-day basis.

The Chairman: Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Bachand.

Mr. Claude Bachand: I'd like to comment on the interesting exchange that followed Chief Seymour's presentation.

I just wanted to state that according to my understanding of history, all ministers of Indians Affairs from the promulgation of the Indian Act had only one objective in mind, the assimilation of Aboriginals. That is what history tells us and it has been reported and documented by the Royal Commission of Inquiry. Canadian policies, regulations and Acts of Parliament had only one aim, namely to assimilate Aboriginals. And as I said in my speech, the present minister is part of this long process.

.1745

I'm a very positive person but when I'm at the edge of a cliff and someone tells me he'll give me a push in the back, the only positive thought that comes to mind is the hope that it won't hurt too much when I hit the ground. I don't want to be described as negative because I'm criticizing this bill and making common cause with the Aboriginal nations opposed to the bill. From the very beginning the Bloc Québécois often voted in the same way as the government. The parties even presented a unanimous report on education.

I personally have taken a very positive and calm approach in this discussion. There may be a positive effect in pointing out that there are some negatives. This is what I'm doing today concerning the bill under discussion. I am taking such a positive approach to this debate that I'm happy to see Chief Seymour express a different point of view from what we have heard so far. His opinions have given rise to an excellent discussion in our committee and I think that is one of the purposes of our consultation on this bill.

Those are the remarks I wanted to make before the discussion is closed.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Chief Seymour, if you wish to make closing remarks, we'll allow some time for you to make them. If not, we will conclude.

Chief Seymour: I'd like to reiterate that I thank the standing committee and the honourable members for listening to me today. I look forward to working with you all in the future.

The Chairman: Thank you very much for you contribution. We appreciate your testimony. Goodbye.

For committee members, we will suspend hearings until 6:20 Eastern Standard Time,3:20 Pacific Time. This time I thought of it.

.1747

.1839

The Chairman: First of all, Chief Saul Terry, I'd like to thank you very much for agreeing to make your presentation at this time. The members and the support staff will be able to go home an hour earlier thanks to you. As you know, it's three hours later here, and we have all had a long day, but not long enough that we can't give you all the attention your presentation deserves. We are looking forward to it.

From the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs, we have Chief Saul Terry, president.

We have 40 minutes together, Chief. This time belongs to you. You may use it any way you wish. We would appreciate it if you would allow some time for members to ask questions.

Having said that, I turn the floor over to you.

.1840

Chief Saul Terry (President, Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs): Thank you very much. I'd like to say good evening to the members on the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. I am permitting myself to be transmitted to you via this rather impersonal, if not depersonalizing, video teleconference technology.

In any case, permit me to introduce myself. I have been elected to the council of my community for the last 24 years. Between 1978 and 1983 I was elected vice-president of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs. My colleagues have honoured me to be their president in the last 14 years.

I cite these facts not to brag but to illustrate that I have witnessed many politicians from your institutions come and go without addressing the issues that plague our peoples between your elections.

I am here today to reiterate that there is a better way than Bill C-79 to improve Indian-Canada relations. Some of those ideas were touched upon in the presentation by the Assembly of First Nations through its national chief, Ovide Mercredi. Therefore, I want to be put on record for you, the committee on aboriginal affairs, for the Prime Minister, the Hon. Jean Chretien, and for my fellow chiefs, especially the peoples in our territories, that the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs concurs with the message the Assembly of First Nations presented to you on March 6, 1997.

On another occasion, March of 1991, I appeared before the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development on behalf of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs because I felt very strongly about the state of siege over our people in Indian country. That year I was heartened to witness actions taken by the Mohawk peoples in defending their territory. At that time, I said to committee members that time and again we as chiefs have to call your attention to the crisis situations facing our people in Canada. I am sorry to say that little has changed in the past few years.

I also looked at the discussion notes on the Indian Act produced by the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs in 1971, in which they state:

...the Indian Act represents special legislation taking precedence over provincial legislation which the Parliament of Canada considers is essential to the needs of the Indian people not only as a safeguard to protect their treaty and property rights, but as a means of promoting their advancement.

If indeed Parliament terms the Indian Act as ``special legislation'', it must be for a good reason. That reason stems from Indian-Crown relations, a special relationship out of which arises lawful obligations for the Government of Canada respecting Indian nations.

It is wrong for any minister to make changes to this special legislation for political expediency unless our people are fully informed and through our collective free will give our consent. After all, there are treaties and trust obligations that must be lived up to by both parties, your governments and our governments.

It is hard to believe any minister, placed in a position of honour and trust, would deliberately try to lead our people down a path riddled with minefields targeting our aboriginal titles and rights. The minister's unilateral action compounds the mistrust and uncertainties that now exist in our communities.

.1845

I can say with confidence that the deliberate sequence of events has led us to this day and once again prompts me to sound the alarm to protect the aboriginal titles and rights our people. The people of Canada and our citizens in our homelands must know the true source of their political disempowerment, social despair, poverty and spiritual disillusionment.

For your information, in 1986 the Auditor General criticized the land management program at the Department of Indian Affairs. The problem we are having now was created by the fact that the department decided to change the way they do business with Indian bands to avoid possible litigation from first nations because of the Guerin decision.

The fact is, the department sought input from chiefs to improve on the land management program, and chiefs responded, because we know this issue well. But this was not good enough for the department, which instead added a whole range of studies under the land revenue and trust review. Millions of dollars were spent - in our estimation, about $41 million - on that process. In the end, all of it was shelved except for the chartered lands management proposal, Indian Oil and Gas, and moneys.

These proposals have been worked and reworked because chiefs would not endorse them. It is now called ``Optional Land Management Proposal for Specific First Nations'', or Bill C-75. It is geared toward just 13 Indian bands. It played a large part in prompting the minister to amend the Indian Act.

The Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs opposes any attempts by the government to diminish the unceded land base of our peoples. We have suggested a treaty with Canada on a nation-to-nation basis that promises long political, social and economic benefits for our peoples. The problem we have with the current process is that the trust relationship we have with the crown is being changed arbitrarily. The minister is refusing to hear the options we have.

That, committee members, comprises the comments we have with respect to the Indian Act Optional Modification Act. I'm now prepared to entertain any questions committee members may have.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much for your presentation.

We will now proceed to questions from members. Mr. Duncan.

Mr. John Duncan (North Island - Powell River, Ref.): Thank you very much for your presentation and for allowing us considerable time for questions.

If I understood what you were saying, you're suggesting, I think, that parallel legislation under the Indian Act is somehow geared toward the same bands as the optional land proposal. Is that right?

Two acts were brought to Parliament in December. There was the Optional Land Management Act, geared for 13 bands, and these modifications to a parallel Indian Act. Are you suggesting those are geared to the same 13 bands?

Chief Terry: No, I'm not saying the amendments are comprised within Bill C-79, certainly, but what we have been objecting to is the fact that this Bill C-79, although Bill C-75 has the consent of those 13 bands, is also is also fencing in those people to simply those reserve lands that are demarcated as their lands. We're saying that we are very concerned that through these bills the unceded lands in British Columbia would be not recognized as such.

.1850

Mr. John Duncan: Do you have a concern that a band that opted for Bill C-75 and also for Bill C-79...? Would one play on the other in a way that you would like to describe?

Chief Terry: No, I think the 13 bands have already made their choice. The minister is now trying to entice us into opting into his proposal for Indian Act amendments.

I think we're having difficulty in accepting that proposition because of the fact that it doesn't - I think this was mentioned in the Assembly of First Nations presentation - permit anybody to opt out once they're in.

Mr. John Duncan: Bill C-79 is a one-way street. That has been made clear to us in the minister's presentation as well.

In terms of Bill C-75, I believe that is a one-way street as well. Is that your understanding?

Chief Terry: If the bands are choosing that, then I would think this probably is the situation as well.

Mr. John Duncan: Okay.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Duncan. Monsieur Bachand.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand: Thank you, Mr. Terry, for your presentation. An objection we often hear relates to the consultation process for First Nations. In British Columbia what percentage of the Aboriginal population is well informed about Bill C-79 and the significant effects it will have? You could perhaps tell us how many chiefs it represents and whether they consulted their members. Is the federal government's consultation process such a rapid one that very few people are actually aware that the proposed amendments will directly affect them? Could you give us a progress report about the consultation of the Aboriginal population in British Columbia?

[English]

Chief Terry: I think that for a lot of our people the speed with which this process has really been pushed is quite extraordinary, in the sense that something that is going to profoundly affect all of our people is being so rushed through. It is not only being rushed through, but there's the fact that there has been no real meaningful discussion even with the chiefs.

What we've been proposing is that there are other options for dealing with the amendments to the Indian Act. We've made that quite clear. It appears that the minister has not been listening. More than 80% of our people are saying that they have ideas that are meaningful in order to change the political, social and economic situation that is quite dire in their communities.

The minister is saying that he's not prepared to talk about that. He's just going to prepare to deal with these matters. At the beginning, he was indicating that he was only going to do some minor modifications or a clean-up of the Indian Act, but I think what the act is going to do our people is quite profound.

.1855

Furthermore, a lot of the people in our communities, including chiefs, have been asking for information, but the information has really not gotten down to them from their MPs and so on. So there is a problem with respect to communications from the minister.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Bachand.

[English]

Mr. Duncan.

Mr. John Duncan: For the benefit of all of us, can you explain your concern about unseated land in British Columbia, in as simple terms as possible? British Columbia certainly is different in many respects in terms of largely the lack of a treaty arrangement, so it would be useful for the group here if you could explain your concerns about the implications on what you described as unseated land.

Chief Terry: Of course there have been no finalized treaties for most of British Columbia, with the exception of Peace River country, where Treaty No. 8 exists, and also the Hudson Bay treaties on Vancouver Island. All the rest of British Columbia remains unseated territory.

With respect to this optional modification act, we may be compromising ourselves when we buy into it, because once you buy into it, you're limiting yourself to only those lands that are now represented as Indian reserve lands. We are very concerned about that. Our peoples should be certainly looking forward to some kind of benefits that accrue from all of their homeland areas and their territories.

This is the concern we have. We'd be compromising that larger issue and boxing ourselves into the reserves.

As you know, Mr. Duncan, with the policies under the B.C. Treaty Commission, we are told we should only expect up to 5% of the land base in any land question settlement here in British Columbia. We're saying that certainly is not acceptable. We're saying there are options to that.

Mr. John Duncan: Just for clarification, did you say that corralling flowed from Bill C-75 or from Bill C-79?

Chief Terry: Well, it's under the establishment of the reserve system. What we'll be doing here is giving our consent to the Indian Act and this process, and if we do opt into Bill C-79, if we're not able to get out of it, then we really are confining ourselves to only those reserve lands, I believe.

This is why we say the aboriginal title and rights of our people are in jeopardy if we get into that kind of situation. We are seeking and really strongly advocating discussions with the Government of Canada, the minister, and the Prime Minister to discuss some very serious options we have from our side.

The Chairman: Thank you.

.1900

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand: Mr. Terry, the Assembly of First Nations expressed concerns about Bill C-79 and its possible impact on the remaining negotiations, which are even more important. A number of agreements were concluded in British Columbia, including the Nisga'a Agreement. But the British Columbia Treaty Commission still has a great deal of work to do with these 225 communities.

If Bill C-79 were adopted, do you think there is any danger that the negotiations will be delayed, the crucial negotiations in the present context between the federal government and British Columbia?

[English]

Chief Terry: Certainly it will have implications on the negotiations, especially when the very things being talked about within this act are matters that may be up for negotiation within those people's arrangements with Canada and British Columbia.

It should be noted as well that the First Nations Summit and the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs were both opposed to the minister proceeding with his amendments to the Indian Act, and especially that they were concerned with regard to the very thing you questioned: how it will impact upon their negotiations.

The Chairman: Mr. Duncan.

Mr. John Duncan: The act has been billed as optional. Are there enough carrots, for lack of a better term, to lead some B.C. bands to opt for it? Or do you think it would take some other form of incentive from the department, outside the actual provisions of the bill - financial incentive or something - to lead British Columbia bands to opt into it?

I know it's an odd question, but the argument will be that because it's optional, what does it matter? But obviously you think it matters and so do a lot of other people we've talked to.

Chief Terry: Indeed it does matter. If they are enticed.... Although I understand the minister denied that there's been any enticement or dollars put out or benefits of some kind if they do opt in, I believe there certainly exists the opportunity for that to occur. Therefore it would make it much easier for those who are in dire need of financial resources, for example, to opt in if indeed the coffers are going to be loosened up a bit for them.

In terms of that, there is ample opportunity there for the minister or government to make certain there are those who opt in.

.1905

In my presentation, you recall, I mentioned a state of siege. I think that has been quite effectively used against our people. I have, for example, sent a letter to the Prime Minister and to various ministries - and probably will be submitting it to the committee there - regarding the disparity, for example, between those who are what I would call Indian rights fighters and those who are more cooperative with the federal government's policies. I think there's quite a marked disparity in the resourcing.

The Chairman: Mr. Murphy.

Mr. John Murphy: I'm not sure whether I heard you correctly, but it sounded to me like you have been saying from the beginning that this bill is flawed in principle and you want no part of it. You have your agenda, the B.C. chiefs have their agenda, and that does not include this particular act. You have other concerns. But I thought you said that for those who would like to opt in, maybe they should have some financial remuneration. I find that a bit difficult to reconcile, in that if I held a principle, I'd hold a principle, and it wouldn't deter me one way another with a dollar. I'm just going to ask you whether I heard you correctly.

Chief Terry: I said that in response to a question from across the way. I indicated that there probably will be resources made available to those in order to entice them to opt into the process because of the fact that in a lot of our communities resources are direly needed. So I think that resources could be used to tempt people to opt in. Once in, of course, there's no way to really get out of it again.

Mr. John Murphy: Fine. The other point is that from your perspective and from what you see - I think this is what you said - in B.C., for instance, those bands that may cooperate more, as you would see it, with the federal government seem to have more resources than those who would tend not to cooperate as much. Is that correct?

Chief Terry: Yes.

Mr. John Murphy: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Thank you very much for your presentation, Chief Terry. Just wait one moment. Mr. Harper wishes to ask you a question.

Mr. Elijah Harper: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Saul, it's nice to see you again. I wanted to ask you a question in regard to your presentation.

In regard to your mentioning the bands accepting this act and that some of the bands may be enticed to opt into this whole process, my feeling is that the first nations are very strong and capable and will not be deterred into that kind of situation. I think we've existed and survived too far to let that happen. I think what's happening in British Columbia - I wanted to ask you - is that there is the B.C. Treaty Commission in process. I know that your organization, the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs, is not involved in this process. Maybe you could explain to this committee why.

.1910

What I would like to point out is that the agreements that may be reached by some of the first nations in British Columbia, such as the Nisga'a people, who have an agreement in principle that has yet to be ratified.... They have come to an agreement in which their territory will not be subject to the federal legislation or the provincial legislation, in a sense recognizing this territory as a sovereign nation. It's recognizing the ability for the nations to create their own loss.

To me, that recognition and inherent right would go much beyond this Indian Act. Any future treaty arrangements or treaty negotiations would also receive that kind of recognition, because I believe that the treaties reached between nations will be paramount and will not be subject to federal legislation. I think that's the goal of every first nation in Canada. I believe that process is on the way. That's why I believe that the first nations are strong enough and have the ability to carry it through.

Maybe you could address my question in terms of the position of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs and the other first nations in British Columbia.

Chief Terry: Thank you. I'll be pleased to.

In terms of the principles encompassed within the existing B.C. Treaty Commission process, we see shortfalls there with respect to the recognition of our peoples. There's a policy in place, as I mentioned earlier, of limiting to perhaps 5% of the lands that may encompass our homeland areas as the high-water mark for settlement.

Of course extinguishment is a primary matter that concerns us, and some of your words: ``certainty''.... All of those kinds of things I believe are principles we cannot accept through this process. How can it be, then, that we are sovereign, indigenous people or people who are going to remain whole after these negotiations? In fact our lands are going to be splintered off into reserve-based areas. Many of our hereditary chiefs are going to be dispossessed of their various homeland areas. Without proper recognition of that and benefits from that -

We also have the matter of self-governance. That is not really their own, I don't believe. That is delegated from the federal government or through these negotiations. I cite, for example, the matter of taxes being paid by these people. That certainly reflects that they shall be delegated as self-governing institutions of Canada, rather than in their own right. That is reflected within the points that are included in Bill C-79, where inherent self-government is referred to. It's only in the preamble area, but it certainly gives a signal that this is the intent.

.1915

I should also point out, Elijah, that it is not only the Indian Act amendments or the B.C. Treaty Commission process here in British Columbia. It's also administrative matters like the flexible transfer agreements in finance - that is a troublesome matter - the devolution process our people have to try to counter in terms of health, education, and social services. And then there is the question of what our role is going to be, our role in industry in this region, in forestry, mining, fisheries, and so on.

These are not matters that we can quite confidently feel are going to be incorporated into a proper self-governance negotiation, and a treaty settlement that is really a treaty on a nation-to-nation basis. So there are many areas that are very problematic.

The Chairman: Thank you very much. Thank you for your presentation, and again thank you very much for accommodating us by coming early. We appreciate your contribution and your cooperation.

Excuse me, Chief Terry, you made mention of documents you were sending to individuals in Ottawa. A member has requested that you send copies to members of the committee. Could I ask that you send them to the clerk? She will distribute them to all members. Her name is Christine Fisher, and her fax number is (613) 947-8198.

Chief Terry: It's been a trying experience here, since, as I mentioned, this whole process seems so impersonal. I just can't express the kind of feeling I have with regard to this kind of dialogue, if you will. Thank you.

The Chairman: Okay. Chief, will you be sending copies of those letters you mentioned during your presentation?

Chief Terry: They will be made available to the committee.

The Chairman: You will do that? Thank you very much.

Now I call upon our friends in Vancouver to see if Lynda Prince and Reg Mueller are present. Do we have Lynda Prince in front of us on our wide screen? Is this Lynda?

Grand Chief Lynda Prince (Carrier-Sekani Tribal Council): That's correct.

The Chairman: Is Reg coming with you? Will Mr. Mueller be with you for the presentation?

Grand Chief Prince: No, he will not be joining me, because we received notice very late yesterday that we were appearing before the committee at 4 p.m. today, B.C. time. I had actually submitted my name to appear on March 2. I didn't hear from your committee or your people, so there's a bit of disorganization on your part.

The Chairman: Okay, we will take note of that, and we will verify why it took so long to confirm.

First of all, I'd like to welcome you, Lynda Prince, Grand Chief of the Carrier-Sekani Tribal Council. If the only contact made with you was yesterday, I apologize for that, and we will verify why it took so long.

We invite you to make your presentation. You have 40 minutes; we have 40 minutes together. Those minutes belong to you. You may use them as you wish, but we would appreciate it if you would allow some time for our members to question you. Please begin at your leisure.

Grand Chief Prince: First, I'd like to thank you for this opportunity to let the Carrier-Sekani Nation's voice be heard.

.1920

I must tell you that I don't like appearing in this fashion before this standing committee. First of all, it breaks with our traditional protocol in terms of how we appear to be speaking to each other today. Nonetheless, this is important enough for me to have rearranged my schedule to fly into Vancouver to be here.

I'd also just like to say that I understand National Chief Ovide Mercredi made a presentation to you on March 6, and we concur with the AFN's message, because we were part of the meetings with chiefs across Canada. In terms of supporting that issue, we the Carrier-Sekani people have been attempting to enter into the treaty process here in British Columbia. The reason we're in this is that we are trying to reclaim our inherent rights, not only as the first inhabitants of North America, but as human beings living on this planet under the only order that exists. In our world-view that order is of creation.

We are well aware that the B.C. treaty process is weak right now, and we're having some problems and difficulties with it. For instance, they are transferring programs from the federal government to the provinces without our involvement. When we signed into this process our understanding was that there would be a new relationship developed. We haven't been seeing too much of that, though we've kept our end of the bargain. We're not seeing that too much on the government's part.

The whole process of self-government is not only about resources, but also about our Indian laws, and how we manage those resources. Therefore, our view is that the changing of laws, such as the modification of the Indian Act, continues to be insulting. In our view, it is changing laws before we come to an understanding at the B.C. treaty table. This is like putting the cart before the horse.

Now, before Europeans came to this North American continent, we were living in our hunting and gathering period of time. This world was the natural order, where all life was integrated, and this was within the order of creation. So it was like a heaven on earth for our people.

What was imposed on us in the non-native world of chaos, where all knowledge is separated, is the reverse of that order of creation. Our order was the one of order and law, and the non-native world is the one of law and order.

Our world was one that cared for all its people, and in the non-native world you see a narrow view of the individual. We see all people as individuals, in that all people are important for the survival of a culture. That is the fight we have, the fight to survive as aboriginal people of this land.

So for the Carrier-Sekani, the whole Indian Act has been, so to speak, a hell on earth, posing oppression and all that comes with the oppression, such as poverty, alcohol, drugs, abuse within the jails of reservations, with no means of building an economy for our people, and always having to ask for permission for what little there is.

These hardships and limited resources have also torn our families apart, and the strong relations we once had with each other caused fighting over what little has been given to us. This is the challenge every leader has to deal with in our native communities.

Our permission had always come from the Creator because of how non-native people looked at the world from within. You have no understanding of our world.

This is why a lot of times there's skepticism about appearing before committees such as yours. This is what was taken from us, and in fact from yourselves 10,000 years ago when western civilization got into an agrarian culture, and moved from being hunters and gatherers.

So the question of self-government always raised the issue of laws. First, before the Europeans came to this country, we lived under the law of creation so when our laws were taken from us, the non-native authorities in fact gave us another separate set of laws from Canadians. In this way we have always lived under separate laws within this country you named Canada.

.1925

So this is the difference in our world-views. Ours was one of order and law, living within all of creation, and the world-view of major societies is one of law and order, manufacturing laws of inhumanities.

Now, let's take process, for instance. One of our important complaints has to do with the process of consultation, such as the Indian Act modification act. The non-native view is to go and talk to our people, as we are doing now. They then take our words, and put them into their way of thinking. When those words come back to us, all too often they are no longer in our world-view.

The process we the Carrier-Sekani are talking about is where we meet continuously, talking about these matters, and developing the legislation together.

For instance, all our chiefs right now are busy. Those who are in the treaty process here in B.C. are fully engaged in that process. They're not paying too much attention to Bill C-79, because they think this should be dealt with at the B.C. treaty process by those who are involved in that.

We have problems when Canada and B.C. said that we're going to have a new relationship. All of this is taking place all around us. It's diverting our attention to these side tables where we have to make presentations before committees such as yours, when we should be fully engaged and meeting in our communities to do the work that's set before us in that process.

We believe this process is not only important for our people, but for all of humankind on this planet. We are all human beings. We breathe the same air, we share the same water, we share the planet.

In the non-native law and order, reflecting the way in which you see the world...is coming back to us all. And these laws are laws of people who wish to control the narrow view of economy. These laws of inhumanity are the cause of all the challenges humankind faces on this planet, including the destruction of Mother Earth. As you have separated your knowledge, so, too, have you separated your laws favouring some over another.

These laws have been determined by those who control the limited resources in their view of survival. These contradict and go against our laws where we consider all people to be important within our nations. So the non-native people do not understand that there is an order, from that order comes laws, and these laws are for all people.

In our world these are the laws of humanity being one with the order that lives within us all. The Carrier-Sekani people are in pursuit of this. What the Carrier-Sekani people are in pursuit of is in fact what all people need to be in pursuit of.

The very challenge of oppression, which has been coming to our people, has in fact come back to haunt all humanity. I'm talking about the abuses, the violence, the increasing poverty, the economy that is in decline within this nation, and the destruction of our Mother Earth. All that comes from the same place, the laws of inhumanity.

Now, I realize that when we appear before these committees, we try to educate people on the different views. I am simply doing this by pointing out what I have discerned and what I have seen, what I hear in my native communities and what I hear in the non-native societies.

I realize it may be difficult for some to understand what I'm trying to say, but sometimes I think the real difficulty is to look at truth. But for the truth to be true, it must be about us all, all human life that lives within this nation called Canada. This is the law under the only order that exists.

So now perhaps you will understand when I say leave the Indian Act alone. For our people and their future we must develop our vision for the future within the order in a way that will fit with your world-view, so that we may all live together for the future of all our children.

.1930

I have some problems. I guess the problems I have are that by amending the Indian Act, what they are doing is giving an appearance of making things better, when the Indian Act is really the truth of what they did to our aboriginal people within this country.

By saying no to our separate laws, what they are in fact telling us is they want us to be a part of Canada when we were never a part of this country. This country grew up around us and without us, without involving us, while we were still in it. That's the problem we have with Canada.

The Indian Act is a totally separate law for us. It's wrong to try to assimilate us or even desire to assimilate us into mainstream society. We believe the Creator created us, who we are, and that we cannot become someone else, even if we try.

As our aboriginal people are becoming more involved with other countries of this world, the Indian Act needs to be held high before nations of the world for all to see, because it's the proof of how Canada treated the first inhabitants of this land.

If you amended the Indian Act tomorrow, what changes would there be for the Carrier-Sekani people? What can I go home and tell my people will be there for them? There's not too much optimism in that sense.

As we work through this process, we cannot amend something we didn't develop for our people in the first place. We can't add to it or delete from it. We can't agree to it. We need to develop something that works for our people.

What my elders and people tell me is we are human beings too. We are a people and we have a government in place and we have laws in place. Those laws must now be respected and recognized in order for us to survive as human beings on this planet. Otherwise we're on a fast collision course to destruction of the entire planet.

It's based on certain things we see seeping from the nation. Pure and simple, some of it is greed. When I see 300 logging trucks coming out of one of my territories or 55 carloads per day added on a train of timber, when I see 10 bunchers going up the side of a mountain in another one of my territories, devastating and shaving an entire side of a mountain within five days, that is excess, and there is no need for that.

The Chairman: Thank you very much for your presentation.

First of all I'd like to mention to you that the reason you were called yesterday is that we had a cancellation from the Tsawwassen First Nation. It appears as though your request to appear might have been received late. We will verify that tomorrow morning.

In any event, for those who did contact us, even after the deadline, we've endeavoured to accommodate all of them so far. I apologize for the late contact.

Now we will proceed to questions from members.

Grand Chief Prince: Sir, March 2 was when I submitted my request to appear before you, according to my file.

The Chairman: So there's no reason for all that time to have been taken, because we've had a schedule printed since 7 March. We will verify. I do apologize.

[Translation]

Mr. Bachand.

Mr. Claude Bachand: Ms Prince, a few years ago I met the Carrier-Sekani as the official spokesperson for my party relating to Indian Affairs. I don't remember having the pleasure of meeting you on that particular occasion but I do recognize the Carrier-Sekani language.

I see that there hasn't been a great deal of change in your situation since then. At the same time I also met your neighbours, the Chilcotin, if I remember correctly, and I raised the matter with your minister and the British Columbia Minister of Forestry.

.1935

When I made this trip to visit you, I flew over the forests and I was absolutely shocked to see hundreds and hundreds of trucks on your land involved in the race to cut down the forest so that there would be no natural resources left to you when an agreement was negotiated with you on land claims and self-government. I'm sorry to see that things have not improved. On the contrary, you inform us that they are continuing just the same.

I don't have many questions to ask you about bill C-79. You say that living with the Indian Act is like living in hell. I suppose that when amendments are proposed relating to this hellish life, there's not much that you can do.

I recognize your language and I appreciate it. If you need any help from me, I will be happy to be of service. I'm anxious to meet you on your home ground because when we meet people in their own environment, we then have a better understanding of their language. I appreciate the kind of language you are using today.

[English]

Grand Chief Prince: Thank you. I do remember you.

The Chairman: Any other members? Mr. Harper.

Mr. Elijah Harper: Good evening, Lynda. This is Elijah. You won't see me on the screen, but it's nice to see you.

I understand your presentation. As you know, I've been involved in this process for some time. I understand that the first nations, or the aboriginal people, would like to pursue their inherent right to self-government, land claims, governance and everything else through the treaty process.

I also understand what you mentioned when you said that amending the Indian Act wouldn't change things at all for our first nations. I totally agree with you.

Even though this legislation is being pursued, I believe the first nations will ultimately decide for themselves on the relationship they will have with this country and the federal government.

A number of initiatives are happening, like the one you mentioned about the treaty process in British Columbia. I hope it will continue. I know you mentioned that presently it's weak. I hope it will continue to grow stronger, much stronger, so that our first nations will find their full rights. I hope some of those problems you mentioned, such as deforestation and the natural resources in those areas, will remain in the hands of the first nations. That's what I look forward to.

As I said to another member, I always try to remain positive; I can't afford to be negative. This whole negativity will overpower me if I let the feeling overtake me. I always try to remain positive. I have full confidence in our people to revitalize themselves and their communities, and become even stronger nations.

I just want to thank you for your presentation. I'm sure we'll meet again and talk again on a number of issues.

I feel, as do some other people, that this kind of arrangement doesn't fit with our traditions. With teleconferencing, it doesn't seem the same. I hope things will change to reflect our own traditions and how we feel more comfortable.

I thank you for your presentation. I offer any kind of assistance I can make to the first nations. Thank you.

Grand Chief Prince: Thank you, Elijah.

.1940

The Chairman: Grand Chief, before I close, I will mention that this teleconferencing doesn't fit in with our tradition either. It's something brand-new that this government is doing to save money. All committees are doing it, and the only reason it's being done is to save money. I'd like you to know that we're not doing this just at this committee. It's being done throughout our committee system, and it's because of money problems.

I wish to thank you very much for travelling long distances and for being with us on short notice. I appreciate your doing that, and I appreciate your presentation very much. Thank you very much.

Good afternoon. This is Ray Bonin, the chair of the committee, welcoming you from the McLeod Lake Indian Band. We don't have your name, because you are replacing Chief Harry Chingee. Would you give us your name, please?

Mr. Verne Solonas (McLeod Lake Indian Band): My name is Verne Solonas.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, and thank you for being here.

We will begin the presentation. We have 40 minutes together. Those 40 minutes belong to you, but we would appreciate it if you would allow some time for members to ask questions at the end. That being said, please proceed.

Mr. Solonas: The first thing I would like to point out to the committee is that I was apprised of this development yesterday, and the location and time were faxed to me, but the details of this hearing were not brought forward. So with all due respect, could you give me some idea of the content of today's discussion?

The Chairman: First of all, if you received notice yesterday, you received notice from Chief Harry Chingee, because I have an agenda here dated March 7, and his name appears there. Your band has known for a while that you were to appear.

We are here to discuss Bill C-79, the Indian Act. Are you familiar with the modifications?

.1945

Mr. Solonas: No. Would it be too time-consuming to brief me on that?

The Chairman: Yes, it would be.

Mr. Solonas: I can respond to it. I do have definite viewpoints on the Indian Act.

The Chairman: You can speak about that, then. We will listen to you and then address questions to you, but I don't think we're in a position to brief people who are presenting, because you should be here with an opinion that would be aimed at influencing our decisions. Therefore, it is not up to me to coach you.

Mr. Claude Bachand: Do you want me to brief him?

The Chairman: No. This is a committee - a public hearing. A public hearing is for us to hear from the public. If you have anything to say, we're prepared to listen to you.

Mr. Solonas: Thank you. What I have to say today with regard to the Indian Act perhaps -

[Technical Difficulty - Editor]

.2004

The Chairman: We apologize for the problems, Mr. Solonas. Please proceed. Talk to us about the Indian Act.

Mr. Solonas: We had some debate in my community, particularly in administration, over some of my views. I want to apprise you of the fact that some of the things I say today are not necessarily agreed upon by perhaps some people in the chief and council and in administration.

.2005

I would like to speak in general terms to the overall concept of the Indian Act as opposed to the amendments we are here today to discuss.

Some time ago I spoke to the general manager of the McLeod Lake Band. I made my view clear that in future I think it's necessary for the band - in fact, all the bands across Canada - to eliminate certain portions of the relationship Indians in Canada enjoy with the federal government. We're in a day and age, at least with respect to the McLeod Lake Band, when we're fairly advanced in administration and the way we do things, the business we do. We generate some of our own revenues in the community to cover any shortfall there might be in federal funding.

Now, I understand federal funding is really a matter of policy. It's not a right. As well, the Indian Act itself is an instrument that identifies the legal relationship Indians in Canada have with the federal government.

I realize that I may be talking about something other than the Indian Act, but as I see it, what should happen down the road is that the federal government consider ceasing funding to the aboriginal communities throughout Canada, or at least those groups who are in a situation much like McLeod Lake, a group that is fairly advanced, a group that generates sufficient sources of its own revenues and can really take care of its own business.

I think what has happened is that at one time, perhaps, it might have been necessary for the aboriginals to be wards of the federal state. Today, at least in McLeod Lake's case, it's not a necessary relationship. So perhaps one of the areas the relationship can change is through federal funding.

I think there is an opportunity for abuses in aboriginal communities who are provided with sources of federal funds to cover their services and programs in the communities.

I agree with the federal government's moves to begin cutbacks in different areas. I had some debate or argument with the lawyer the band uses on its claim. I told the lawyer that the federal government in all its sensibility should take every step necessary to resolve the band's claim - that is, its attempts to adhere to Treaty 8. The treaty would give the band 47,000 acres.

I told him that if the federal government would make available the 47,000 acres, I would be willing to walk away from any department funding. The $1 million a year the band gets from the federal government, you can forgive that. The band would then just operate off its 47,000 acres. I think that would force the band to become more astute in its own current affairs, in the way it does business, in its daily operations, in the policies it applies to the community. Top to bottom, I think it would provide a lot of opportunity for the band to seriously grow and develop in all its operations.

.2010

What has happened in the past is that the federal government had developed a relationship with the Indians. This relationship, to some degree, is spelled out in the Constitution and through the Indian Act, but the problem is that sometimes you just have to let go and give a guy the opportunity to actually do business on his own.

I'm not saying that you should scrap the Indian Act altogether, top to bottom. Here's what I'm saying. Consider those groups, like the Sechelt, who have actually taken steps forward to amend the Indian Act so they can do business based on vague terms of reference rather than on the federal government and the Constitution. The Constitution identifies and spells out how people do business, like the farmers, fishermen, people in certain provinces, the provinces themselves, the federal government itself, and the Indians. Everybody tries to live according to the Constitution, but you can't do that. It's difficult to do that.

What I'm saying is that perhaps sometimes you have to relax the legal relationship that tells people how they have to live. The Sechelt have done that to some degree. Mind you, they do have a Sechelt act that says you've got to do this and that.

I think you have to take a step somewhere. Here's one way in which I would do it. If the people in my community give me the mandate and power to do it, I would enter perhaps into a three-year funding arrangement with the federal government. I would say that at the end of three years, that's it. In the meantime, we need the 47,000 acres we're entitled to under treaty. We will pay our own way through the 47,000 acres.

If the federal government sees that it is then necessary to make certain constitutional or Indian Act amendments regarding McLeod Lake, then perhaps that's the time to address it.

For now, I think the band is being dragged along with the other groups throughout Canada. The band really does a lot of its own business. A lot of the problem is that we are trying to work around the confines of the Indian Act. Do you see what I'm saying? So we're operating more at a very businesslike level, but a lot of the time the Indian Act slows us down. We would just as soon get rid of the whole thing, if that is ever entirely possible.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Now we will invite the members to ask questions. We will start with Mr. Duncan.

Mr. John Duncan: For the benefit of us all here, as to your adhesion to Treaty 8, I understood that a fair time ago that was basically completely negotiated and consummated and it just required signatures. What happened? That hasn't happened. Am I correct?

.2015

Mr. Solonas: That's right. We negotiated from February 10, 1993, until February 29, 1996. At that time we gave both Canada and British Columbia a week to put together the final details of the package we had negotiated with both British Columbia and Ottawa.

At the end of the negotiations in 1996, the federal team and the band's team agreed that negotiations were actually over and that we did have a deal. Both the federal team and the band's team were prepared to recommend to their superiors that a treaty agreement be signed.

At that point B.C. was asked if they would be prepared to sign off on these negotiations, and they said they had no mandate to do that. Of course we expressed dismay, because we'd just spent millions of dollars and three years on negotiations, when British Columbia had no mandate to conclude the agreement.

What they're saying today is that there is one outstanding issue, one stumbling block, that prevents British Columbia from signing the agreement, and that is cost sharing. We said ``What do you mean by cost sharing? Could you enlighten us, please?''

B.C. said they asked the federal government for $135 million to conclude this agreement, because under treaty B.C. is going to give up 47,000 acres to the federal government so the federal government can sign the Treaty No. 8 agreement with the band. So we asked what the federal government offered. They offered $20 million. So there is a question of $115 million that's outstanding.

We've asked Victoria and Ottawa to please help us do this deal. I don't know what it would take to do that. Anything short of $115 million.... I don't know. But I tell you, if you gave me the 47,000 acres, I would walk away from any future federal funding at all. If you give me the 47,000 acres I'm entitled to under treaty, forget about the federal budget; I'll make it on my own.

So at least we're told it is cost sharing.

Mr. John Duncan: Your agreement is in adhesion to Treaty No. 8, and the formula that was derived was based on previous treaty agreements. There are a lot of parallels with what went on in, let's say, Saskatchewan, with treaty land entitlement types of negotiations, in which the federal government actually paid the bill. So I can see, in a sense, the province's argument.

It's of interest that the federal department budget this year for settling claims is actually reduced. That would be an added irritation for you, I'm sure.

I know I have other questions, but maybe I can get a chance to take a breather, if there are other questions.

The Chairman: Okay. Mr. Hubbard.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: I have just a few short-answer types of questions.

This is to the McLeod Lake Indian Band. How many members do you have, how many live on reserve, and how many live off reserve?

Mr. Solonas: My understanding is that the last count was about 390 band members. I also understand that about 120 live on reserve. It's a fairly small community on reserve.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: You are located quite near the town of Mackenzie in northern B.C., is that correct?

.2020

Mr. Solonas: That's right. We're 50 kilometres from Mackenzie.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: A number of changes are listed in terms of the new modified act. One would mean that bands at present are protected by being able to enter into contracts in terms of being sued or being responsible for legal commitments with other groups off reserve.

Do you believe it should be changed so that the present protection is eliminated and that bands will operate on the same basis as other Canadians?

Mr. Solonas: Definitely. I think it leaves the door open for abuses by communities. I think there's an onus on every individual, regardless of the colour of his skin, to do business in an honest manner. I don't think it's right for one guy to be given protection and another guy to be held accountable.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Do you believe that the federal government, through the minister, should control the sale of produce off Indian reserves? For example, you're involved in a heavily forested area of British Columbia. Should bands be required to get permission from the minister and from the department in order to sell their product?

Mr. Solonas: I think there must be some level of regulation. Otherwise, there could be.... We always come back to the abuses. If that happens, one always has to protect himself as well as individuals and communities. What I mean by that is that there has to be some responsibility and accountability somewhere.

I know there are regulations and laws that govern how businesses, for instance, in the non-native community of Mackenzie pay taxes and do business. They can't sell certain things. I think there has to be some level of regulation. I think there should also be some kind of regulation for the band. The band itself could perhaps set up some kind of -

For instance, in the treaty negotiations we had with B.C. and Ottawa to adhere to Treaty No. 8, the band agreed to set up something called the McLeod Lake Forest Practices Code, which mirrored the provincial forest practices code, which tells people in British Columbia how they can use the forests. I think those are the types of things we need.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: I am very impressed with your breadth of knowledge of all this. You certainly have a very good command of what's happening there.

There is another part of the present act that seems to indicate that the minister can decide who should be offered as a candidate in band elections. Who do you think should decide who should be capable of becoming a councillor or a chief on a first nations reserve?

Mr. Solonas: I think it should stay with the community. The community should perhaps set down the rules, but there should also be a mechanism in place in case there is abuse. Perhaps an objective body can be set up of perhaps federal representatives and band representatives, so that everything is on the up and up.

.2025

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Aboriginal artifacts is another aspect of the control the minister and the department have exercised over first nations communities. What would be your position in terms of who should control the ability of first nations to trade, sell or give away artifacts that are very important for their people?

Mr. Solonas: The communities should do that.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Do you believe neither the minister of the department nor the Government of Canada should have any control over first nations peoples in terms of what they do with their artifacts?

Mr. Solonas: The aboriginal communities perhaps should deal with that themselves, without interference from any level of government.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Finally, in terms of native education, should the minister be involved with the educational process in first nations communities?

Mr. Solonas: In our case, we now bus all our kids to the local non-native schools. That includes high school and elementary. Now, that is for the people on reserve. The people off reserve go, once again, to non-native schools in Prince George, Vancouver or wherever they happen to live.

There isn't any question in our minds that the parent, in this case, makes the decision as to where the child shall go to school, and if there are any expenses for books, for instance, the band will pick up the cost. That is also the case for high school and higher levels of education, providing the funding is there.

There is some issue here, though. Sometimes I notice that chief and councils can say they have the power to reject an individual's applications to the band for funding assistance. The bands could say, well, we can't do it, because the federal government policy, or the Indian Act, says we can't provide any funding for you because you live off reserve, even though there might be sufficient funding to cover the person who lives off reserve.

I think the whole question has to be looked at from top to bottom. I think it has to come from educators of aboriginal descent. Again, if a band has its own 47,000 acres, the band itself should be setting up its own programs and services, including education. It would not be necessary for the federal government to get too involved in that.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Two quick points. This is off the topic, but are your committee members able to maintain their language? Second, what success have you had in terms of your young people attending high school? Do most get a high school education under this system? How does it work in terms of your community?

Mr. Solonas: I think we're finding out that now, in the 1990s particularly, we have a higher success rate. Some of it is due to the band's own commitment toward assisting the individuals and setting up support systems for the entire community in terms of drug and alcohol counselling, mental health counselling and health counselling. We have professional counsellors coming in from Mackenzie and the RCMP coming in and assisting us in setting up these different programs and services, providing support for the community.

.2030

The other thing we do have is education banquets, with awards that help reward the children for their work. We never used to have that. So we have a degree of success at the high school level that didn't exist ten years ago.

I'm sorry, what was the other question?

Mr. Charles Hubbard: It was about your language, in terms of attending community schools. With your young people, are you able to maintain your first language as a community?

Mr. Solonas: Not on an operational basis.

We had language classes back in the late 1980s, and for two years in a row in the early 1990s we set up a language class on reserve, right out of the band offices, for the elementary kids who came out of school at 2 o'clock. They would attend this class from 2 p.m. to 3 p.m. That project became not very practical after a while, but we're going to try it again.

The other thing is we published a dictionary, a copy of which has gone to each family on reserve. So there is some effort on the part of the band itself to try to preserve that language. To tell you the truth, though, everybody on reserve speaks English and all their education happens in English. Everything they do is in English. The money they spend is from the English.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Duncan.

Mr. John Duncan: I don't know; Mr. Hubbard did such a good job of asking questions that I'm not sure I have any. It was certainly an interesting presentation.

My sense is that the Indian Act has been a major obstacle to developing entrepreneurship. I know you talked about the obstacles the act presents to the band trying to operate in the confines of the Indian Act.

Seeing as how you are operating businesses, could you describe some of the obstacles that the Indian Act as it's currently configured does present to carrying on business? Could you give some examples?

Mr. Solonas: In the past, if we wanted to log a part of the reserve and sell the wood to generate revenues, we would require ministerial approval. In the 1980s we said ``That's a lot of B.S. We can try to change the system by using the courts or changing the legislation, or perhaps changing the Constitution. There are other groups doing that, so let's just go ahead.''

An actual incident arose back in 1986, when we were gearing up to go to court, and there was no time to get any ministerial approval. The process takes time. So we said okay, let's do it. We went out in the bush, logged about 200 acres and put $400,000 into our own bank account. We phoned up the Department of Indian Affairs office in Prince George and said ``We're going to do this and you guys aren't going to stop us. That's the bottom line.''

I don't know if Ottawa ever heard about it, but that got us under way, and two years later we were able to put an injunction over 55,000 acres of traditional Sekani territory to protect that area, the judge said, until such time as the band can finally settle its efforts to adhere to Treaty No. 8.

.2035

Some groups don't have the luxury of harbouring a bad attitude like the Sekani of McLeod Lake do. We'll just go out and do things, and we'll tell people about it later - and they'll sue us. Other groups are just not that developed, or perhaps they have spent too long in the residential school. I don't know.

As I said, the McLeod Lake group tends to just do things and then phone people and tell them later. Other groups perhaps lack the leadership, and they may feel hampered.

Mr. John Duncan: We have a circumstance, I believe, in British Columbia in which some bands are very much trying to do business, and they are doing business. When it comes to politics - the group you're talking to tonight works in a political arena - we essentially never hear from them. I think it's because they've decided to expend their energies in creating business and in doing things for their community.

One thing that does somewhat puzzle me is that although those bands are very good at taking care of their own community, I have yet to see them really networking - maybe it's not visible to me - in a way that could really assist a whole group of communities.

To give you an example from my area, which is Campbell River, they are building a huge shopping complex. They have a whole bunch of initiatives under way, but they've had to jump through the hoops of the Indian Act and all of the approvals. It's probably put an extra two or three years onto the timeframe of their project, and maybe they need a bit of politics in order to get this changed. For one band to tackle it would be very difficult.

Is there any movement that you're aware of to getting those kinds of bands together to lobby really hard?

Mr. Solonas: I think that was attempted several times. We had the rise of the UBCIC, the UNN, and later on the summit.

There seems to be an historical aspect to this. At one time throughout North America, aboriginal groups occupied their own traditional territories. They defined it as a territory. Just the use of the term ``territory'' suggests that this is mine and that's yours over there.

In the past and up until recently, groups have been fairly self-contained and have not worked at the political level, or even at the economic level, to assist each other or to lend support to each other. I think in our area we're just learning how to do that - to work with the Tahltans, the Tsay Keh Dene, and the Fort Ware group. That is a very recent effort - I'm talking about the 1990s - on the part of the band.

.2040

Now, the reason that came about is that we considered ourselves an economically astute people, and we found out there are a lot of economic opportunities. Through trial and error, particularly in the 1980s and 1990s, we started figuring out how to do business.

One of the things we're finding out is that doing business means calling up your town buddies and saying, hey, can you guys lend us some expertise? You guys have worked on Mount Kleppan project. Can you come in and perhaps...?

We have a guy who's prepared to come in on a consulting basis. We are going to pay him. If we don't pay him, then we'll make the mine pay him, but it's a necessary payment.

The other thing is that the general manager of the band has entered into some kind of tripartite arrangement with the former chief of the Tsay Keh Dene. Once again, those two guys used to fight it out in DIA boardrooms up north, and now the two guys are actually entering into some kind of a relationship.

Now, that is a type of networking that is happening, and it's because the groups in the north, at least the Tahltans and the Sekani groups, are becoming more business-oriented.

Mr. John Duncan: I would never want anyone to think that I want you to focus less on business and more on politics. So I'm delighted to hear what you're saying. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much. The time is up, and I'd like to say to you that for an individual who was questioning what bill we were addressing, you sure made an excellent presentation. I, and probably the other members, felt that you were speaking from the heart, and your contribution was very much worth while.

For the record, can we ask you if you are a member of the band council or an employee of the band?

Mr. Solonas: I am a member of the McLeod Lake Indian Band, and I was formerly employed by them. I was also on the band's negotiating team, and I currently work for them on a consulting basis.

I'm a consultant out of my own home. On these types of occasions when the chief cannot make it, he requests that I attend in his stead, which has happened in this case. He's a very busy man. He's still working. He's 75 years old, and still works. Everyone in the community works.

I also represent the band. We're in court tomorrow. We're suing the B.C. government over the land we're seeking in the treaties. So I will be a lawyer attending court in the morning.

The Chairman: Well, if I were in court, I'd want you on my side.

Voices: Oh, oh.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

This concludes our hearings for today. We will resume tomorrow afternoon at one o'clock. Thank you.

Return to Committee Home Page