EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, March 12, 1997

.1517

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.)): We'll resume hearings. For the record, Chief Jerry Knott from the Wasagamack First Nation did not show today. From Cross Lake First Nation, Chief Sydney Garrioch did not show today. From the Sioux Valley Dakota Nation, Chief Ivan Ironman did not show today.

From the Sayisa Dene First Nation it says here ``Sarah Cheekie, Member'', but I think there are corrections to be made. Would you help me out, please.

Mr. Kevin Carlson (Native Communications Inc., Sayisa Dene First Nation): Yes, I'm Kevin Carlson, and I'm one of the authors of the presentation that Nancy will be giving you here today.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, and thank you for being with us early and accepting to accommodate us. We really appreciate that.

We have forty minutes together. Those minutes belong to you. We would appreciate it, though, if you were to allow some time after your presentations for questions from members. As you know, we are here to deal with Bill C-79, an act to permit certain modifications in the application of the Indian Act to bands that desire them. We invite you to start at your leisure.

Ms Nancy Powderhorn (Framework Agreement Coordinator, Sayisa Dene First Nation): Good afternoon. I'm here today to bring you the view of the Sayisa Dene First Nation, from near Lake Manitoba.

About Bill C-79, the proposed Optional Indian Act Modification Act, the chief and council of the Sayisa Dene First Nation vigorously oppose it. Our opposition on this modification bill can be summed up in three main areas. But let's be clear. All these areas, related to each other, when combined form the horrid condition we must live with on a daily basis.

It is our view that the federal government has failed to live up to its fiduciary responsibility as outlined in Treaty No. 5, which our elders signed in good faith and trust on August 1, 1910. The biggest commitment the Crown has failed to live up to, that causes the most hardship, is lack of reserve land. Treaty No. 5 clearly states that each family of five would receive 160 acres of reserve - 32 acres per person. Currently the Sayisa Dene First Nation has 603 members. Three hundred of those live in Tadoule Lake - only 526 acres.

.1520

By the TLE agreement, using the government's own formula as agreed to in Treaty No. 5, the Sayisa Dene First Nation should comprise 22,372 acres, which leaves a 96% shortfall. Can you imagine a community trying to live on a piece of land that is smaller than many farms in southern Manitoba?

This brings us to housing. The Sayisa Dene First Nation relocated to Tadoule Lake in 1973 and lived in homes - and I use that term loosely - considered to be temporary. The majority of these houses - I mean shacks, because that is what they are - do not meet any form of acceptable standards. The lack of water and sewage facilities, coupled with these terrible shacks, makes for an increased cause for health concerns.

Our people are dying because of the horrible conditions, and speaking of death, the genocide Sayisa Dene First Nation members experience because of the stupidity and total lack of human compassion of the federal government is outrageous and unacceptable, by any sense of world standards.

The conditions we were forced to live through following the first mass relocation from Duck Lake to Churchill in 1956 were even below a Third World standard. We were and still are the poorest of the poor. History shows that we were dumped on the shores of Hudson Bay and forced to live in one-room, paper-thin shacks. We had no economic resources, no running water, no healthy supplies of fresh water, no proper heating or food.

Direct action and inaction by the federal government caused our people to scour the Churchill garbage dump to supply our diet. Let me make sure you have the full grasp of what I have just said. We had to eat other human beings' garbage just to live. This is what I meant by mass genocide.

The Sayisa Dene First Nation lost half of our membership. We watched our friends and family members dying around us and there was nothing we could do to stop it, because the federal government ignored us.

Can you imagine being scooped up from your homes, told to leave everything behind, and dumped on the shores of an Arctic coast with nothing, and virtually being ignored for nearly two decades? Today we find that, having to live in Tadoule Lake for the last 20 years, once again we're being ignored.

With respect to the Indian Act, this document is a racist piece of paper not worth the ink used to print it. The Minister of Indian Affairs, the Honourable - and I use that term loosely - Ron Irwin has publicly said that the Indian Act amendment has been achieved through full consultation and support of first nations people. The Sayisa Dene First Nation has never been consulted. The Sayisa Dene did not approve of the new act. How can we support something proposed by the government that has never supported us? The basic support our elders agreed to on the summer day of 1910 - Treaty No. 5 - has never materialized.

Just before I close, I would like to direct your attention to a quote from Elijah Harper's own book:

The Indian Act is like a penitentiary, with the Indian people as the inmates. Changing the act does not get the inmates out of jail. When you change the Indian Act, all you're doing is extending the change a little longer. That's all.

Mr. Harper, as a member of Parliament, we call on you to once again rise and support the Sayisa Dene First Nation, a first nation in your riding that clearly is a voice of opposition to this bill.

In closing, I would think that the federal government, through your committee, would show some integrity for conveying our displeasure with Bill C-79. Give our youth some hope that things will indeed get better. I don't want our children and our children's children to have to experience the atrocity that we have.

I would like to extend my invitation to the standing committee to visit Tadoule Lake and meet with our elders, leadership, and our members, and view first-hand what we have to endure and to continue with on a daily basis.

I have a video, Nuhoniyeh, that was done on our band, and I'd like to know if I can leave this with someone.

.1525

The Chairman: Okay. Would you send it to the clerk of the committee? It would have to be sent today so that we have it early next week, in order that every member can have an opportunity to see it.

Ms Powderhorn: Okay. Could I send some of these same -

The Chairman: Absolutely. We would appreciate you sending all written materials, or any materials you have, and we'll put them on record for you.

Ms Powderhorn: Okay.

Mr. Carlson: Just to clarify that, we're not leaving this with somebody here in Winnipeg; we're going to mail it to you. Is that correct?

The Chairman: That is correct. You can bill the committee for the expense of sending it.

Mr. Carlson, will you be adding any comments to the presentation?

Mr. Carlson: No. I guess we're open for any questions the committee members may have.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Monsieur Bachand, from the Bloc Québécois.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, B.Q.): I would like to welcome my Dene friends. I have often been to the Northwest Territories, but I have not yet been to the northern part of Manitoba; I would like to go there one day. Since I am the spokesperson of my party for Indian Affairs, I feel it is my duty to do my best to visit every region in the country where there are First Nations.

Ms Powderhorn, you have given quite a shocking description of what is going on in your communities. I knew that there were some poor communities. You yourself qualified the living conditions as being on a par with those of third-world countries, but I myself often talk of fourth-world conditions. Such a situation is unacceptable in our society.

You also mentioned Treaty No. 5. You are aware that Bill C-79 that we are now studying aims at modifying the old Indian Act. You are also aware that the Bloc Québécois is opposed to the bill because we believe that the recovery of your status and of the socio-economic conditions that you had before the arrival of the Europeans requires that the treaties be respected. One of the arguments that we often hear relating to Bill C-79, is that there is a danger that we might forget the treaties and rely solely on the Indian Act.

I also understand that Treaty No. 5, as is the case of all treaties, was not carried out as perfectly as you had hoped. Am I right in saying that your presentation should be interpreted as meaning that the future is much more dependent upon the carrying out of Treaty No. 5 than on the modification of the existing Indian Act? Would you prefer the execution of a treaty over the passage of a bill that would change an act that is 100 years old?

[English]

Ms Powderhorn: As I said, our band is opposed to it, and we would like -

Mr. Carlson: I think first nations in Manitoba and across Canada have been quite clear that the Indian Act itself is a piece of legislation - and Member of Parliament Elijah Harper said it - like a penitentiary. It doesn't serve the first nations. It's time to start working with the treaties and get rid of the legislation altogether.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand: It is very clear. You are telling me that you would prefer to see us enact Treaty No. 5, bring it up to date and ensure that the spirit contained within it at the time be applied today, rather than change the Indian Act, and act that is 100 years old. I understand that.

I would like you to talk to me briefly about the consultation process. This is an aspect that we often hear criticism about. Did you answer the minister's request? From the beginning, the minister has told us that he sent out a series of letters to the First Nations and that several of them answered. Did you answer the minister's letters? In your opinion, is a consultation through correspondence sufficient to tackle a problem as serious as the one you are faced with today, namely modifications to the old Indian Act?

.1530

[English]

Ms Powderhorn: I believe there was a change of chief in council right around the time when he sent those letters out. There was no consultation. It came in on a fax. I don't know if the previous chief or the new chief got that information. I don't know if anybody responded. As far as I know, it was not responded to.

The Chairman: Ms Powderhorn, would you have any closing remarks?

Ms Powderhorn: I would like to invite the member I just spoke to to attend our Denesuline gathering, which we are hosting this year in Tadoule Lake on July 7 to 11. We're extending our invitation, if he would like to attend.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Mr. Carlson: Just so the member of the Bloc understands this, this is a gathering in which the Dene nations from all across Canada will be gathering in the Sayisa Dene First Nation in Tadoule Lake, which is the most eastern Dene nation in Canada.

The Chairman: It may be advisable that you send an invitation to all members of the committee. You can get the list from your member of Parliament if you don't have it with you.

Thank you very much for your presentation and for coming the distance to be with us.

That completes this part of the consultation.

For the record, from the Nelson House First Nation, Chief Gerry Primrose no-showed today, so we moved on.

The next group coming is from the Norway House Cree Nation. As soon as they appear we will be prepared for them. We will suspend hearings until a witness appears.

.1534

.1549

The Chairman: We will resume our hearings with the Nelson House First Nation, withMr. Lou Moodie replacing Chief Jerry Primrose.

Mr. Moodie, do you wish to make a few comments before...?

Mr. Lou Moodie (Proxy Chief, Nelson House First Nation): At the present time, from our perspective in Nelson House, what I would like to say is that we recognize that Bill C-79 is there; however, we would like more time to review the amendments being proposed. We're not for it; we're not against it; we want a thorough understanding of what is being presented to us. That is my basic comment for now.

.1550

The Chairman: To fill you in as to where we're at, the bill was introduced in the House of Commons on December 12, and copies have been sent around. We have now been entrusted with that piece of legislation. We are studying it, and next Tuesday we will have completed our consultation.

I will open up for questions, if any of the members have questions of you. The first will be from the Bloc Québécois, Mr. Claude Bachand.

Mr. Claude Bachand: Hi, Lou. I am starting in English, but I should be speaking in French because I'm French myself.

[Translation]

I will speak to you in French, Lou. One of the first issues I had to deal with as Indian Affairs Critic some three years ago was that of the Northern Flood Agreement, that you are probably quite familiar with. There are some 600 native communities in Canada. I remember that when I started with Indian Affairs, I was very involved in the Nelson House file. I know that there were other communities such as York Factory and Cross Lake. These issues are not foreign to me and I even tried to go and meet with you, but unfortunately it was not possible.

Today we are dealing with Bill C-79. Is your community covered by Treaty No. 5? Yes? The witnesses who appeared before you, representatives from the Sayisa Dene First Nation, also come under Treaty No. 5. The purpose of Bill C-79 is to make changes to the old Indian Act. We, from the Bloc Québécois are against these changes because we believe that to resolve the native issue, what we should be doing is bringing up to date the treaties and ensuring that they are respected, which has never been done, rather than making changes to the Indian Act, because of all of the consequences that would flow from that.

To your knowledge, was your community consulted regarding Bill C-79? Did you receive any correspondence to that effect? Did you answer the minister? In your opinion, should consultation go further than a simple exchange of letters?

As I asked your predecessors, representatives from the Sayisa Dene First Nation, is it useful to change the old Act or would it be preferable to simply carry out Treaty No. 5 and its philosophy, in accordance with what was signed when your ancestors and mine were alive?

[English]

Mr. Moodie: Can I answer?

The Chairman: Yes, the floor is yours.

Mr. Moodie: I've seen you in Ottawa. I do believe you were a member of the standing committee at that point in time when we did a presentation in Ottawa pertaining to the Northern Flood Agreement.

At the same time, I would like to be able to use my aboriginal tongue; however, you guys do not have a translator, so I have no other language to use but the English language.

Getting back to your first question, should there be more consultation at the community level...I think prior to that you asked whether or not there was any consultation at the community level. My answer to you is no, there hasn't been.

There was correspondence, which I have here, that was submitted to our chief in council. When we did receive it, we had a look at it. Within the timeframe we had, it was a hard thing to try to digest.

.1555

When we talk about consultation we talk about the Northern Flood Agreement. The Northern Flood Agreement basically exemplifies consultation, because extensive consultation was done at the community level, and not only there, but in Winnipeg - basically where all our community members are situated. When I say ``exemplifies'', I mean that we understood the Northern Flood Agreement.

There were negotiators within the Northern Flood Agreement who were basically given the mandate to do just that. At that time there were four of us. And within our council there were eight of us. We wanted to make it a priority for our chief in council to understand the Northern Flood Agreement, so we met on a consistent basis. We started from a grassroots level and worked our way up to the leadership.

We feel that in order for us to make a sound decision we need to understand it from our perspective. Having teleconferencing, not sitting around the table and being able to witness you in the same room...from my perspective it doesn't seem right. I know technology speaks here, but the way I look at it we don't have the same dialogue. Let's put it this way: I'm looking at a screen, not at a human being.

There has to be more consultation if you are going to amend the Indian Act.

You've asked if I accept the fact of it being amended and you've also asked whether or not the philosophy of the treaties that were signed in 1908 should remain. Correct me if I'm wrong. Is that what you were asking?

Mr. Claude Bachand: Yes.

Mr. Moodie: The way I look at it right now, yes, the philosophy has to be kept.

What do we have to do from our perspective, from my perspective and from the perspective of the community members and the taxpayers of this country? We have to educate the general public about who we are. It's long overdue for the taxpayers of this country and for people at the grassroots level - and that is elementary school to high school - to start knowing who we are.

Right now the way it looks...it's sad to say, but you can walk on the streets of Winnipeg, Toronto, Ottawa, or wherever and ask what an aboriginal is and you'll hear, yes, they are human beings, but they're money-hungry Indians. They say that out of ignorance. They don't know. They don't know what our treaties are.

That's basically what I have to say in response to your question. If you have any more questions, I'd be more than happy to answer them.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Is there anyone else?

Mr. Murphy.

Mr. John Murphy (Annapolis Valley - Hants, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome, Lou. I'm glad you're with us. By the way, your English is very good.

I know you're not familiar with Bill C-79 so maybe I'll just ask you something about your own community. I'd like you to tell me about some of the good things that are happening in your community, some of the positive things that are helping to enhance and helping to move your community ahead.

Also, could you tell me about the relationship between your band council and the band itself? How does the communication flow? How does the band's grass roots get involved and get the communication and knowledge of what is happening through the band council itself?

I'd appreciate hearing from you on those two items, Lou. Thank you.

.1600

Mr. Moodie: What are the good things about our community? I'll tell you one thing: there are some good-looking Indians in our community. I say that with all honesty.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. John Murphy: I can see that.

Mr. Moodie: Basically, from an infrastructure standpoint, the good thing is we have facilities that we're proud of, that we appreciate, and that accommodate our children's unobligated time. That's to burn off the surplus energy. That's one nice thing. We have an arena and a sliding hill. Basically we have a lot of fun.

When we, as leaders of the community, meet at the community level, we have fun. I don't say we jump on the table and start dancing around. When we dialogue at the community level, within our chief in council, the one thing we do not lose sight of is respect and laughter. We maintain that laughter is the best medicine.

Yes, we get into heated discussions and debates about issues, but whatever differences we have, come the end of the day, we shake each other's hands. We leave everything in the boardroom. Mind you, sometimes when we come back in the morning, it's not there. It disappears over time.

The other good thing we have is we're proud of our community members. They're going out and showing our culture to North America, not only in Canada but in the United States. We have a young girls' drum group, with members aged from 9 to about 13. That's one thing we are very proud of.

Also, we often acknowledge the people in our community, from our children to our women to our elders. We just had a women's feast three weeks ago, to honour our women within our community, because we recognize who they are.

In other words, when you say ``good'', I'd move it up to ``excellent''. The excellent thing is we don't lose sight of who we are. We never lose sight of what is given to us on a day-to-day basis. We appreciate the value of life - our life and the life of the person next to us. That's one thing I'd say is very good in our community.

There are a lot of bad things. I don't know if you asked me to name the bad things, but I can sure name a lot. I touched on the positive aspects of infrastructure; I can touch on the negative aspects of it, if you want me to.

How do we communicate at the community level? We usually have a general band meeting once a month. We communicate in both languages: we use our aboriginal language and we use the English language. We also communicate through newspapers, through newsletters, and through our local channel. That's how we communicate to the general public.

Anything sensitive in nature that is going to affect our community we take to the grassroots level, and that's to the people. I have to jump back to the Northern Flood Agreement process. That's one thing I really appreciated, because from day one we involved everybody at the grassroots level, until the implementation of that agreement.

Mr. John Murphy: Thank you very much, Lou.

The Chairman: Mr. Moodie, are you a member of the band council?

Mr. Moodie: I am.

The Chairman: Okay, we'll put that on record for you.

Is your TV monitor working properly now? Is the screen clearer now for you?

Mr. Moodie: Not as clear as ours.

.1605

The Chairman: Given the technology, that's the image they have. I'll acknowledge to you that you're proof that there are good looking Indians in your community. I have my friend Elijah Harper here, and he's a good looking Indian himself, but you're better looking than he is.

Having said this, I'll give Elijah the floor now.

Mr. Elijah Harper (Churchill, Lib.): Meegwetch.

Tansi. Thank you for appearing before the committee. I'll let the chair speak for himself, but you look good anyway.

In terms of who the people are, I think what you just described is going to determine who we are. It's not going to be the piece of legislation that determines who we ourselves are. That's going to be determined by the community, by our people, and I don't think any legislation will tell us who we are. I think we've operated that way since the first day we had contact with the people who are here today. I truly believe that, and I have full confidence in our people to maintain that way of operating. We'll always be in a position to advance our concerns, without any lack of will on the part of our people.

I know there are people here who are hesitant to move on this piece of legislation because of our past experience in our relationship with the federal government, but I think our people have always had the confidence to move forward with the government, and to maintain their honour and dignity. That's always been the case, and that's why I say it's what makes us strong, what makes us who we are today. We are not afraid to move forward, even though the federal governments have not honoured their treaties - but that is not our problem.

At some point, this thing will be addressed and somebody will be accountable. Somebody will be responsible at some point in the future. I always hold that as a sort of future that I look forward to, and as I said to the members, I can't afford to dwell on the negative. I have to move forward, take the word of somebody who says that, and honour it. I think that's the way our nations have always acted.

I just want to compliment you on that, because I know that's the way in which the people in northern Manitoba have always presented themselves. They're not afraid to meet the challenges that face our people, and they will continue to do that.

I just wanted to say that to you, and I thank you very much for appearing before the committee. We'll see you soon.

The Chairman: Mr. Moodie, there being no more questions, we will offer you closing remarks if you wish to make some.

Mr. Moodie: I guess there's just one thing. I don't want my presence here to be perceived as an acceptance of the amendments. I believe in a process, but I strongly believe that process has to start from a grassroots level. As was further exemplified by the Northern Flood Agreement, I truly believe that any initiatives that are being started have to start at the grassroots level.

I know I wasn't allowed to ask any questions at the onset of our discussion here, but I wouldn't feel comfortable in leaving you without asking the one question that's puzzling me about Bill C-79. If you can allow me to ask this one question, I would greatly appreciate it.

The Chairman: Go ahead.

Mr. Moodie: The one problem I have pertains to being able to have land, and I'm going to give you a hypothetical scenario that's based on how I read Bill C-79.

.1610

I want you to correct me if I'm wrong on this. If I'm not wrong, though, please provide me with an answer, whether it be positive or negative.

Hypothetically, under a certificate of possession, I get land - let's say it's about a hundred acres - from the Nelson House First Nation. I now have this land and I turn around and say that I think I'm going to start a business here. The one question I'm going to ask myself is where I'm going to get the money. The only obvious place would be from a financial institution. Having said that, I would go to the financial institution and ask if I could borrow so much money for starting up this business. The obvious question that's going to be asked of me is whether or not I have anything for collateral, because the institution doesn't have a problem if I do have collateral. Of course, I would respond by saying that I have 100 acres of land. The banking institution then would or would not - but for the purposes of our discussion here, let's say they do - grant me the money I'm asking for.

So now I start up my business, and it's rocking and booming. All of a sudden, let's say a generation later, I still owe money on the land or on the business itself. I've never neglected my responsibilities to the financial institution; however, I pass it on to somebody else, specifically maybe my son or my grandson. In turn, he turns around and starts neglecting his financial responsibilities to the financial institution. Having said that, because of his neglect of his duties, of his financial responsibilities, the banking institution can theoretically come onto the reserve and basically take the land that was put up as collateral. The bankers can say that because there have been defaults on the loan so many times, they're repossessing that land.

One question jumps out when that does happen. When that piece of reserve land, which was once identified as reserve land, is taken away from my son, what would the Canadian government's responsibility be on that land?

The Chairman: I will invite any members who wish to respond to do so, but what we're doing now is not customary. We do have time, though, and we would like to be flexible. Is there anyone who would like to respond?

By the way, Mr. Moodie, I should say to you that the responses you're getting are the opinions of individuals. If you want a concise response, I would suggest that you send a letter to your member of Parliament to ask that member to get a precise response from the department. For the time being, though, I think Mr. Murphy wants to address your question.

Mr. John Murphy: I'll just try to talk a bit about the issue of reserve lands. If I can, I want to reassure you that Bill C-79 doesn't allow reserve lands to be seized or be otherwise lost to the band. It's not there. I don't know if that helps to allay some of your concerns, but the bill does not direct itself to that issue at all.

Mr. Moodie: Can you make specific reference as to where it states that in Bill C-79 so that I can narrow my thinking capacity to it?

Mr. John Murphy: I have some material before me. Just let me see here -

The Chairman: I can address it if you wish.

Mr. John Murphy: Yes, go ahead, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Mr. Moodie, clause 89 of the act addresses land, and it's not one of the changes.

.1615

On that note, Mr. Moodie, we will conclude this public hearing. Thank you very much for your presentation. It was quite a good presentation when you consider that you didn't have the luxury of preparing for it. You did very well, and it did help the committee members.

Mr. Moodie: Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Hertlein is replacing Chief Ron Evans, chief of the Norway House Cree Nation.

Mr. Hertlein, we're ready for you as soon as you're prepared. We are pleased to welcome you as a presenter. Thank you very much for being with us and for offering to share your knowledge and experience on the issue of Bill C-79. We have forty minutes together. Those minutes belong to you. We would appreciate it, though, if you would allow some time for members to ask you questions afterwards.

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

Mr. Luke Hertlein (Director, Justice and Legal Services, Norway House Cree Nation): Thank you very much, and good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

I was under the impression that I had fifteen minutes, so I have drastically reduced what I was going to say. I guess I'll just talk more slowly now.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. Hertlein: In addition to what I'm going to be presenting on behalf of the chief in council, I also want to make a presentation for the Aboriginal Women of Treaty 5 within Norway House Cree Nation. They have provided a short statement to be presented here today.

The Chairman: Mr. Hertlein, we are pleased that you have a document from this group. We will allow you the time you need, because we're very interested in hearing from them also.

Mr. Hertlein: Thank you.

I would have a document for you, too, but my printer wasn't working. I'm therefore going to be reading from my computer here. Sorry about that.

I am here on behalf of my band, the Norway House Cree Nation, to present to you some concerns with regard to Bill C-79 and to tell you why we oppose both this process and the bill itself. In addition, I will present to you the concerns of the Aboriginal Women of Treaty 5 within Norway House Cree Nation.

In the limited time permitted, I shall attempt to emphasize some of our concerns with regard to this process and with regard to the impact this bill may have on Norway House Cree Nation. This presentation, however, should also be referred to our written submission, which we will hopefully get to you by March 18.

First, I shall address the lack of consultation that Norway House has experienced with regard to this process. In April 1996, the Minister of Indian Affairs informed our chief in council that he was proposing to change the Indian Act. Norway House Cree Nation did not approach the minister for any of these changes; he imposed these changes under the guise of requesting advice as to whether he should amend the most archaic and offensive sections of the Indian Act or leave the act alone for the indefinite future; in other words, agree with his proposal to change the Indian Act or do nothing, including not entering into any meaningful discourse or recognizing inherent aboriginal and treaty rights.

In his news release of September 11, along with the then proposed changes, the minister then indicated:

If there is First Nation support I am prepared to introduce a Bill to the House of Commons. There will then be an opportunity for extensive public hearings by the Standing Committee.

The minister subsequently sent the plain language, minor changes and invited comments. These invitations to comment and criticize the proposed changes were not with regard to the current bill you are now considering.

Chief in council, however, responded to the minister's actions on December 3, 1996, in the form of a letter and a band council resolution. In our BCR, chief in council indicated that Norway House Cree Nation was not consulted, nor had it any input with regard to the proposed changes to the Indian Act or the process, and chief in council rejected the process and scope of the amendment. This, however, was before Bill C-79 was tabled.

.1620

The minister responded to our first nation in a letter of February 5. This letter stated that he had travelled throughout the country listening to chiefs and aboriginal leaders, and that as a matter of fact it was in response to the general and specific concerns of many first nations and aboriginal organizations about the Indian Act that this process was carried out on four occasions since the process was initiated in April 1995. He stated that every first nation and many aboriginal organizations were consulted for their input and suggestions with regard to the proposed modifications.

Maybe that's his version of the event, but for your information the Norway House Cree Nation did not bring up with the minister any concerns about the Indian Act, and neither has he travelled to Norway House to ask about general and specific concerns regarding the Indian Act. It appears that the information the minister has provided in notices or news releases was just that, informing and telling us what he was doing, and it in no way has provided an opportunity for him to discuss or confer on these changes with Norway House.

In addition his letter to us was in regard to the proposed changes to the Indian Act that he had provided in September, not to the present bill that you are now considering.

The minister's letter also indicated directly to Norway House:

I expect the legislative process will provide for extensive public hearings and a review conducted by the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. As a result of these hearings and the submissions of First Nations, more changes to the proposed package will almost certainly be made.

This was a comment directly referred to my first nation, and there was a similar comment made in regard to his covering letters dated December 13, which were attached to Bill C-79.

Needless to say, the words of the minister are hard to believe, as there were never any extensive public hearings held.

As well, Norway House Cree Nation was caught totally unaware in regard to your standing committee's hearings. We had by chance found out about them when we phoned the Assembly of First Nations on March 3 regarding any additional information dealing with Bill C-79. At that time, on March 3, we were told that the standing committee required a response from first nations within two days, by March 5, as to which first nations wished to make a presentation.

Upon notification we contacted the clerk for the standing committee, and we were informed that their fax machine didn't work, so the notices for these hearings were sent via the mail. While we received a copy by fax from AFN, we did not receive any official notice from your office in regard to these proceedings. Oddly enough, upon returning a fax to your clerk regarding our attendance here today, on the same day somebody phoned us and confirmed that.

As a result, this presentation has definitely been made in haste and is cursory in its overview, although we may be able to provide a more complete and thorough analysis by March 18, as I indicated. However, from our experience it is questionable as to whether or not all first nations actually are aware of these committee hearings. In any event we have yet to receive official notice despite the fact that the notice was sent from your office on February 26.

That being said, Bill C-79 is a serious concern to the Norway House Cree Nation. As the minister himself in his address to you indicated:

I don't need to tell members of this committee that this is a complex and technical bill, one that will take time to read and digest. That is why we refer it to this committee prior to second reading, so that you may examine it.... That is also why we have left it totally open-ended as to when first nations can opt in. We want them to give it careful consideration, taking as much time as they need. I believe that once they've done this, many more will see its benefits and choose to become part of it.

In other words, the minister knows that this bill is convoluted, inconsistent, complex, and quite technical, telling you that you require time to read and digest it while not giving us first nations that same opportunity, who, by the way, lack the parliamentary expertise and resources you have at your disposal.

.1625

Claiming we have been consulting is, I think, at least misleading, as you suggest we should take time to review the bill and give careful consideration only after it becomes law. There still has not existed any meaningful discussion between the minister and Norway House Cree Nation, and accordingly, we want to make it clear that we do not see this presentation as consultation.

Again, because of the lack of time permitted to make a presentation today, the presentation does not represent all the views of the members of Norway House Cree Nation, as the majority of the band members have not had the opportunity to review it and provide their input.

That being said, I will now address the optional nature of the bill and the concerns that are raised. By way of background, Norway House Cree Nation has never been consulted and never consented to the application of the Indian Act. As you know, the Indian Act, in whatever incarnation and attempted changes it has gone through over the years, has been a somewhat effective but ultimately unsuccessful tool to either assimilate or extinguish the treaty and aboriginal rights of first nations in Canada. In addition, the Indian Act has not allowed us to exercise our inherent aboriginal and treaty rights.

That being said, this bill purports to permit bands to opt into certain modifications in the application of the Indian Act by virtue of a single band council resolution. While this present chief in council will not opt into this bill, this doesn't prevent a majority of the members of the council to opt into it in the future without requiring a band meeting or referendum. This could effectively prevent any forum for discussion within our band membership on the potential effects of the bill and silences the voices of our band members.

Along with subclause 4(2), which does not affect the application of the Indian Act to Norway House Cree Nation, a future chief in council could, finally, after more than 127 years, obtain the consent, albeit with no input from the band members, of Norway House Cree Nation for the application of the Indian Act itself.

As well, in the preamble it states that the bill is an interim measure until such time as self-government agreements are in place, and for other purposes. While other purposes are not defined, it appears the only way to remove oneself from the schedule is to make self-government agreements. However, since a band cannot be removed from the schedule, it appears the federal government would already have set the tone for the self-government negotiations in order to be removed. Norway House Cree Nation believes the inherent right cannot be achieved within the context of the Indian Act, yet we are expected to tie ourselves to it for any negotiations for self-government. Norway House Cree Nation does not accept this.

Bill C-79 purports to ensure that nothing in the Indian Act applied in accordance with this act shall be construed as to abrogate or denigrate from our aboriginal treaty rights. Indeed, Norway House Cree Nation is a signatory to Treaty No. 5, which was signed in Norway House in 1875, and our rights were in existence before the creation of the treaty or the Royal Proclamation of 1763. Section 35 of the Constitution protects these rights.

Briefly, and as you know, the Indian Act is an act that is specifically designed for Indians. An Indian means a person who, pursuant to the act, is registered as an Indian or is entitled to be registered as an Indian. A reserve means a tract of land that has been set apart by Her Majesty for the use and benefit of the band. However, it appears the minister is attempting to change the Indian Act in a fundamental way.

I want to take the opportunity to plug the computer in because I'm running low on my battery.

The Chairman: Take the time you need.

Mr. Hertlein: I left the plug at the hotel, so I'll keep going and start talking faster.

First, proposed clause 16.1, ``BANDS - Capacity,'' appears to begin to transfer bands into municipalities. What then happens to our treaty rights that were signed on behalf of Norway House Cree Nation, not in the capacity of a corporation or municipality? Norway House Cree Nation is not a corporation or municipality, and the municipal corporation of Norway House did not sign Treaty No. 5.

.1630

Second, the minister cannot make decisions about our lands without our consent. You cannot take away our aboriginal treaty rights. As a band of Indians, we retain the right to make decisions with regard to our land. However, Bill C-79 is in direct opposition to this important tenet.

For example, in the existing Indian Act, the band presently has the right to determine who may occupy the land in terms of a surviving spouse. Proposed paragraph 43(c.1) provides for a new definition of a surviving spouse. While the ``surviving spouse'' definition is a change that does address the archaic language - meaning ``widow'' - of the act, it also makes it more uniform to the provincial definition, despite the fact that Indians are under federal jurisdiction.

Offloading Indians to provincial jurisdictions is troubling. The minister attempts to do that with some other sections in order to be consistent with provincial jurisdictions. This further raises questions in regard to the offloading of the federal government's fiduciary duty. Proposed paragraph 43(c.1) states that the minister may deem any person, aboriginal or not, treaty or not, to be a surviving spouse.

This is different from existing section 14 of the Indian estates regulation. In the rationale provided by the minister, he indicated that the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations has taken the position that the existing regulations are ultra vires.

That being said, the proposed section will give the minister the discretion, along with more power, for the purposes of the devise or descent of property under the Indian Act. It's possible that this could be interpreted as adversely affecting Norway House, as subsection 20(1) of the Indian Act currently permits the council of the band to allot possession of the land.

The band currently has the right to determine who may occupy the land in terms of the surviving spouse, or widow, as it is now. The minister, through section 49, shall deem that a person who claims to be entitled to possession or occupation by devise or descent shall be deemed not to be in lawful possession or occupation of those lands until approved by the minister.

Bill C-79 gives the minister the right to direct a person to be the spouse of a deceased Indian. This would perhaps not be immediately, but this could possibly mean that through the new deeming powers and Bill C-31, the lands that were originally set aside for the use and benefit of Indians will no longer be applicable.

Under Bill C-31, if a daughter does not have treaty status but has certificate of possession under this bill, the land can be released to the third party. It appears then that children can inherit the land, and it can continue to be inherited by non-treaty persons. If a non-treaty person then has the right to occupy the land and if they are inheriting with a certificate of possession, then eventually, possibly, our land or parcels of our land may then be in the hands of non-Indians, which is contrary to the definition of a reserve, the application of the Indian Act, and our treaty.

In conclusion, Norway House Cree Nation does not believe that our inherent right can be achieved within the context of the Indian Act. This is in line with the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples.

From our very preliminary analysis, Bill C-79 is much more than a house-cleaning exercise. It appears to be a means by which the federal government is trying to implement its own policy and agenda, possibly informed by the 1969 white paper.

Needless to say, there are numerous other proposed sections that we have yet to address and analyse. These include: clauses 24 to 30, regarding elections; proposed subsection 53(1.1), the management of surrendered and designated lands; and proposed section 103.1, the bylaw enforcement officer's powers.

Needless to say, those are sections that we have to look at, but we have to review the whole bill itself. We haven't had an opportune time to do that.

While there may be some minor changes I could possibly address, the archaic and paternalistic provisions of the act, such as the definition of a widow to be gender neutral and the requirement for chief and councillors to be eligible electors in the band, this bill is riddled with proposed changes that may ultimately be contrary to the Indian Act itself, our treaties, and the Constitution.

.1635

I'm just going to quickly review - it's much shorter - a presentation on behalf of the Aboriginal Women of Treaty 5 within the Norway House Cree Nation.

We, the Aboriginal Women of Treaty 5, believe that treaties are meant to be in effect for as long as the sun shines, the grasses grow, and the rivers flow. Treaty No. 5 provides that the aforesaid reserves of lands, or any interests therein may be sold or otherwise disposed of by Her Majesty's government for the use and benefit of the said Indians entitled thereto, with their consent first obtained.

Bill C-79 gives powers to chief in council and individuals to sell or otherwise dispose of land and the interests therein. Subsection 5(1), the opting-in clause for Bill C-79, removes our power of consent, a power that is recognized within the treaty in that it requires only the consent of the chief in council as evidence in a band council resolution.

The perspectives of aboriginal women are not considered. Decisions are being made by predominantly male leaders at both the level of chief in council and by the Government of Canada. We have not been consulted, and we do not recognize this process as consultation, and further, consultation does not confer consent.

In addition, we believe that Bill C-79 is another policy of genocide that is an extension of the 1969 white paper. Article 2 of the genocide convention states that:

...genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

The report of the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry of Manitoba states, in reference to Bill C-31, that:

Not only does the Indian Act maintain improper, and probably illegal, forms of sexual discrimination, but it also threatens the long-term survival of Indians. It further states that intermarriage between registered Indians and others over two successive generations result in descendants who are not entitled at law to be status Indians. It is thoroughly inappropriate for the federal government to possess the authority or to legislate in such a way as to divide a people into those it will regard legally as being members of the group and those it will not, on grounds that violate the cultural, linguistic, spiritual, political and racial identity of these people.

Bill C-79 does not seek to correct this injustice; rather, it encourages marriage between treaty persons and non-treaty persons by giving the right to non-treaty surviving spouses to occupy reserve land when their treaty spouse is deceased. It gives further encouragement by giving rights of descent of property from treaty to non-treaty people.

We, as treaty Indians, are required to make decisions that no other person in Canada is required to make. In order to have children, we must choose which is more important: the continuation of our treaty, or to have children with a non-treaty person. We believe that the Minister of Indian Affairs is aware of this burden of choice and, through Bill C-79, knowingly continues to impose it. Simply put, no treaty Indians, therefore no treaty.

We do not accept Bill C-79 or any other process that will extinguish our treaty rights.

Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Hertlein.

First of all, I'd like to mention that in addition to our notice on February 26, we received your fax on March 5. The clerk's office confirmed to you by fax at 10:53 a.m. on March 7 that you had been chosen to appear. I understand there have been numerous phone calls and communications since.

Mr. Hertlein: Yes. It gave us less than five days to get everything ready, so I'm sorry if it's a little rough there.

The Chairman: It was well done, there's no doubt. I'm sure it's an issue that you're all very familiar with. I wish we would have had more time, too, but those are the dates.

Thank you very much for your presentation.

Now we will open it for questions from members. Who will start?

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand: I wish to thank you, Luke, for your presentation. You did not complain about the new technology, because it appears that you have excellent technological means in front of you. I do not know if this is the first time you have participated in a video conference, but I find that you are doing very well and that you did a very good job of defending the colours of Norway House.

.1640

From what you have said in your presentation, it appears, if I understood correctly, that you consider that the consultation process has been a failure from beginning to end. We did not grant enough time to hold consultations or to enable you to prepare yourself. It was a bit of demagoguery when we claimed that several nations had informed the minister on this matter. You formally deny that Norway House participated or sent a letter suggesting certain changes to the Act. I understand, and that is the essence of your presentation: you are denouncing the consultation process from beginning to end. I would ask you to confirm that I have understood your meaning correctly.

My second question deals with the importance of the treaties that several people have mentioned. I know that you come under Treaty No. 5, which incorporated a certain philosophy at the time. I believe that your presentation clearly indicates that the future of Norway House and of the First Nations covered by this treaty depends much more on its updating and its respect than on a series of modifications to the old Indian Act. Am I right in understanding that the regulation or regulations that will define and promote the socio-economic conditions of Norway House will depend more upon the respect of the treaties than on modifications to the ancient Indian Act?

[English]

Mr. Hertlein: Thank you. I'll attempt to address your first concern in regard to consultation, where you indicated the way you understood what I was saying about the lack of consultation, and to further explain and elaborate on that.

I must state for the record that I started working for my band in July of last year, so the information I have after July of last year is based on people I talked to and documents we have within our office. Up until that point, I can only say what I have received information on from various people and the documents we have.

In regard to consultation, as far as I can determine, there hasn't been a clear definition of what consultation really is. That's probably what was lacking in this process. If the federal government is going to consult, then really, it should consult. What does that actually mean? I don't know what it actually means. I know there is a definition in law that makes reference to consultation. However, it doesn't say exactly what steps should be involved.

When the minister and the assistant deputy minister first made their presentation to you, they indicated there was a whole consultation process involving, supposedly, first nations from across the country, including the national organizations. I would just like to say that as a first nation we should be involved in that process. While it is good for that national organization to be there, that isn't necessarily consultation in and of itself. However, needless to say, it's good that national organization is there, because that's how we got information on this standing committee.

I could certainly tell you what I'd like to see in regard to consultation, but for right now I don't think I would be able to outline exactly what we want, other than respecting that this concerns us and that we should be properly addressed.

On your second point, I'm not too sure exactly what you were referring to in regard to the treaty. If it's possible, could you please elaborate on that question?

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand: Several communities have come to tell us that Bill C-79 in its present form could have a negative impact on the respect of treaties.

.1645

I know that the treaties, including Treaty No. 5, should be no exception. It is often said that these treaties have been more or less respected. I believe this treaty was signed around 1908. In those times, the signing of a treaty was done according to a certain philosophy. Some aspects were of the nature of a nation-to- nation relationship. The fact remains that, even though these treaties have not been implemented, many people say that the federal government should respect what has been negotiated in this regard.

Would Norway House prefer updating the treaty, in order to determine what it means today and to really implement it, or would it prefer amending the Indian Act, a legislation that is over 100 years old?

There are several ways to improve socio-economic conditions for Canada's aboriginal people and Norway House may have some very original ideas on this. I for one believe it would be better to invest more time in order to update treaties, including Treaty No. 5, and to implement them than to amend the Indian Act. I would like to know your views on this.

[English]

Mr. Hertlein: I totally agree in regard to dealing with the Indian Act. Clearly these are both older documents, one stemming from a legislative process and one stemming from a nation-to-nation process.

I certainly would like - and this is just my personal opinion - to see some force and effect being given and attention being paid to the treaties themselves. I don't think the Indian Act is necessarily a useful device for anything.

That being said, I'm here just to make the presentation, and I can't really say anything in regard to the position of Norway House. But I can certainly say the enforcement of our treaty rights would certainly be listened to keenly by chief in council.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand: Could you tell me if you are a counsellor or a manager of the band council of Norway House or if you are an employee. What is your official status?

We often hear that there is no real definition of consultation, which you mentioned also. The minister has defined consultation as being an exchange of correspondence. He thinks it is enough to send off two or three letters to all first nations to be able to claim that consultation has been carried out. In the first nations' tradition, is a simple exchange of correspondence sufficient to claim that there has been consultation?

[English]

Mr. Hertlein: I didn't get the end of that.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand: Does the simple fact that the minister says there has been an exchange of correspondence constitute meaningful consultation according to your definition or should the minister have done more before claiming there has been consultation?

[English]

Mr. Hertlein: Okay, thank you. Sorry, something cut off there for a moment.

First, I am an employee with Norway House Cree Nation. I'm also a band member. I'm the director of justice and legal services, which is a new division that we just created last November. I'm still trying to get my office into shape, and I have a lot of work to do before that actually happens.

In regard to consultation, I don't think just the passing on of correspondence to first nations via the mail or fax is necessarily consultation at all. If you want to take a traditional approach to it, I wouldn't necessarily be the best one to talk to. Perhaps our chief in council would be, or perhaps our elders at the community level would be, in talking about how things were resolved in the past.

If what you're saying is true about how consultation would be done, we didn't have letters back then. So these letters that are going back and forth really mean nothing.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Would anyone else on the committee like to ask a question?

Mr. Harper.

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

It's Elijah speaking here. I want to thank you for your presentation.

.1650

First of all, you mentioned the Indian Act. The optional Indian Act has not been well known in the community, or the chiefs in council have not really worked on this, and there has been some correspondence about the possibility of not necessarily amending the Indian Act but this act coming.

I believe there has been some discussion in Manitoba in regard to this bill, not in terms of the contents of the bill but rather the process and also in terms of the political agenda in Manitoba, by the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs. I want to ask you whether you have been involved in that process. I'm particularly mentioning the framework agreement that's in place in Manitoba as a way of dealing with the relationship with the federal government, and these Indian Act provisions now are not necessarily the priority of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs.

I believe the framework agreement, which has been in place for some time now, is the direction that the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs is taking, and I want to ask you if you are aware of that process. Also, to what extent have you been involved and what has been the extent of the involvement of the chief in council in Norway House? The concerns you raise are addressed in that framework agreement, in terms of the process and also protecting our constitutional and treaty and aboriginal rights.

I can elaborate and provide you with some information on that, but I believe you may have those documents already in outlining the process. I totally believe the chiefs wouldn't be going through this process; they wouldn't even look at it as opting in at all. They have an agreement in place there that will ultimately replace the Indian Act, even if it comes at some point in history to finally establish the relationship that would truly reflect the nation-to-nation relationship in Manitoba. I see that as a way of addressing many of these things you have. I'm asking you whether you are familiar with this process in Manitoba.

Mr. Hertlein: Yes, I am, and I'll review and make some comments in regard to that.

First, you indicated that the information in regard to these proposed changes was not well noted in the community and the chiefs in council have not worked on it. As a matter of fact, the chiefs in council have worked on it. It's a matter that the bill is quite complex and technical, so not only is it complex and technical for chiefs in council but for our band members as well.

You also indicated that the FAI is a way to deal with these proposed changes, and that even if they do go in, we shouldn't really be worrying about this because once the FAI process happens, we won't have to concern ourselves about that. I guess to a point you are correct. I think the FAI is an excellent process in which to get from point A to point B, and as the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs has managed to put a lot of work into adjusting a lot of these concerns - and I have read the materials in regard to some of the stuff they have said for these changes - we are involved to an extent with the FAI process. We are there, and we do have somebody working in the community with respect to it.

.1655

What really is meant by us trying to say we don't agree with these proposed changes is that the FAI is a process in itself. As you're probably aware, there are problems and concerns with that whole process. I don't know the technical details in regard to what's happening with the FAI on a day-to-day basis, and whether it's actually going to continue, or what's happening with the negotiations, but I know that at the end of the day it has to go to the community for ratification. Once it goes to the community, and once the community is consulted in regard to that process, it's a possibility that the community will say no. If the community says no, where does that leave Norway House? If that leaves Norway House opting in or possibly being involved in the Indian Act in the way it is with the proposed bill, we're here to try to raise our voice in disagreement with the proposed changes.

Mr. Elijah Harper: I know the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs has worked on this framework initiative. I think all the bands have been involved in this process. A resolution was passed in Dauphin, Manitoba, on November 21 by all the chiefs of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, basically regarding the framework initiative - the process itself. It was moved by Chief Francis Flitt from Opaskwayak Cree Nation, The Pas Indian band, and seconded by Chief Oliver Nelson, Roseau River First Nation, which is in southern Manitoba.

I'm just going to read to you the ``Therefore be it resolved'' portion. It says:

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs re-affirm the F.A.I. process here in Manitoba and call upon Minister Ron Irwin to ensure that any amendments of the Indian Act as it applies to First Nations in Manitoba be optional and consistent with principles and process of the F.A.I.

That was a resolution passed by the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs at their meeting regarding the framework initiatives and also the Indian Act amendments.

What the minister has done is honour that request, in which this proposed act is optional. If the band chooses not to go into this process, they will never be tied down. I believe the framework initiative will ultimately determine the relationship with the aboriginal people and first nations people in Manitoba.

If you read some of the principles and agreements that have been reached with the federal government - treaty and aboriginal rights are protected, and also the project in Manitoba - this process will not affect other first nations in Canada but will only be dealing with Manitoba.

Basically what I'm saying is that attempts to protect the interests of the aboriginal people by our people have I think been maintained...and also for them to call on the minister to make sure this is optional, in a sense, because I realize there are some bands in Canada that may want to pursue other available options and not close the door. I'm sure a lot of other presenters will be making comments on this.

As you mentioned, the chief in council have worked on this. To what extent they have been involved in the framework initiative, my feeling is that the framework initiative will take precedence over any other activity in Manitoba in regard to establishing the relationship we have with the federal government on a nation-to-nation basis.

.1700

I'd also ensure that treaty and aboriginal rights are there and our treaty rights are maintained, not through the Indian Act amendments or Indian Act provisions. That's the sincere feeling I get from Manitoba first nations.

What I would ask you is whether that is the same feeling the chief in council have in regard to this process, or are they pursuing other avenues?

The Chairman: That was a fairly long question. You have about a maximum of two minutes to respond.

Mr. Hertlein: While I am privy to some technical information, I'm not privy to everything, so I will probably make my response short.

I first do want to highlight that if the band decides to go into these optional changes - as long as it's kept optional - we don't have to opt into it. That is fine if it's up to the band to make that decision - for one, possibly - but it's not. It's up to a band council resolution. So it's not even up to the band. We're not talking about the first nation. We're talking about individuals who decide it might possibly be in their best interests on a personal level to opt into this. At the end of the day it might adversely affect the larger portion of our population.

With regard -

The Chairman: Do you have more to add?

Mr. Hertlein: Yes, I'm just going to quickly tie it up here.

In regard to the agreements with the federal government and what's going on with respect to those processes, as I said before, I'm not a politician and I don't know all the intimate details of what's going on, but I do know that the federal government does not have a good history in regard to dealing with us on a nation-to-nation basis. And it is a nation-to-nation basis we are talking about. It's not on a nation-to-national organization or a provincial aboriginal organization basis we're talking about.

At the end of the day, if the framework agreement initiative does not go through, we will then be stuck with these optional changes to the Indian Act, and then where will our people be, not only for this generation but the next, and for ultimately deciding where and how our inherent rights are going to be affected?

I think that's all I wanted to say.

The Chairman: Thank you very much. You've made some excellent points and we appreciate your contribution. Thank you very much.

Now we'll find out if our next presenter, Chief Murray Clearsky is there.

We now have before us, from the Shoal Lake Band No. 40, Chief Herb Redsky and Tom Campbell, councillor. Thank you very much for being with us, for having agreed to be here, and for being early, because that accommodates us and we really appreciate it.

We have 40 minutes together. Those 40 minutes belong to you, although we would appreciate if you would allow some time for our members to ask questions of you. Having said that, you may proceed at your leisure.

.1705

Chief Herb Redsky (Shoal Lake Band No. 40): Thank you.

I want to be brief in my comments. I support the modification act. I've been a chief for close to 20 years, and based on my experience some of the things that I see in the modification act I have wanted to see addressed for many, many years. This includes in particular the accountability of chiefs and councils, particularly people who are corrupt, shall we say, to be blunt. Oftentimes in our native communities there is a lack of accountability to our band membership, and if I read the act properly, I understand it to mean that we'd be more accountable to our band membership. That's the part I really liked seeing.

The other aspect I would like to touch on in terms of accountability for the council and myself is not only in the financial area but also in the other section I was going to talk about, that is, the elections and the way our band members are viewed by the old act. The old act basically eliminated the rights of a lot of our band membership. The ones I'm talking about are the off-reserve members. They live off reserve, and as a result, under the current act, they are not allowed to vote for chief and council. They are not allowed to have an opinion. As a result, as chief and council we're always placed in the position of not being accountable to these people, and we should be.

On their behalf - and that's why I'm voicing this now - I think none of those people will be in a position to say they support it or don't support it, because they're not included in any band affairs whatsoever, unless as token people with no rights whatsoever on reserve. That's the big difference between this act, the modification act, as I understand it, and the old Indian Act: their inability to be full band members.

I really like the idea of having those off-reserve members being full-fledged members. I myself have relatives in the city of Winnipeg who cannot vote. Whether it's for me or somebody else doesn't really doesn't matter, but they don't have the rights that I have and enjoy. For that reason I'd really like to see them have those rights and enjoy the rights I have, but they don't have those.

Just for a second I'd like to turn the mike over to my councillor, Tom, for a few words.

Mr. Tom Campbell (Band Councillor, Shoal Lake Band No. 40): Thank you for this opportunity to make a presentation to the committee.

Along with our chief, in support of the modification act, we analysed it from various angles. We came to a conclusion in terms of what are the effects of the amended act. We concluded that in our case the Indian Act Optional Modification Act appears to extend to a band greater control over its own affairs. That's the movement where we want to have the flexibility in terms of controlling our own affairs.

.1710

We appreciate that paternalism is eliminated in many clauses of this bill. This is where the minister basically had a lot of control over the affairs of government business. In our definition we recognize the highest form of Indian government to be the band chief and council, and this allows us to be able to do that.

We also recognize that the bill is stated to be interim in the sense that it grants first nations greater powers until such time as new relationships have been established with the Government of Canada. In our study of the Indian Act in its original form, we recognize that many years ago the Indian Act was formed to a large degree to control Indian people on the reserves and within the reserves.

It was very paternalistic, very colonial, very ethnocentric. Any movement towards amending that and taking some of these provisions out or changing them allows us greater control, and we appreciate that. The ideal, of course, would be to take the act out - we've heard our minister say that several times - and replace it with something that we hold very close to us, and that is the treaties.

However, we recognize that the changes are optional and first nations who do not want to change are entitled to maintain the status quo. Many of the status quo things would not be in our best interest in terms of our control. The optional modification act entitles our first nation to begin expanding our jurisdiction. That's what we've tried to formulate in terms of good self-government in our first nation by having the ability to have the jurisdiction. We believe this modification lends itself to that.

A couple of highlights that I wanted to make reference to in support of this modification act are with respect to the changes affecting the operation of the council. We find this to be very important in that we have the ability in proposed section 16.1, and I quote:

16.1 A band has the capacity and, subject to this Act, the right, powers and privileges of a natural person.''

This gives the band the power to sue, be sued, own land, and enter into contracts. It gives our first nation an increased ability to conduct business and manage our activities. Dealing with other levels of government, corporations, and other business entities will be easier for our first nation by having established the full capacity to enter into contracts.

As you know, our first nations are gearing towards independence and self-reliance. Economic development strategies are developing, as in our area, for mining, for forestry. In our case, our community supplies water to the city of Winnipeg. Water resources and water rights are an issue, so we find this provision in proposed section 16.1 allows us to move easier and have the ability to negotiate these contracts.

With respect to band council elections...the electors Herb made reference to, our band membership both off and on the reserve. We find the provisions amending the election portion of how chiefs and councils are elected, how many we can hold, the length of time a chief and council are elected for, are very valuable tools that are available for us to work with.

By all means, having the three years instead of the two years...we absolutely require the three years in order to provide better government to our community.

.1715

In our case, in a two-year term of office we find that basically the first six months or a year is orientation. The last six months is campaigning and so we have basically less than a year of good government opportunity in there. With the three years we find this would be more acceptable to the band membership.

There are some questions we have with respect to this area dealing with changes affecting the operation of the council. New section 80.1 is added, which gives the minister power, at the request of the band, to declare that the council of the band shall cease to have the elections to be held in accordance with the act and to revert to custom elections.

We've heard the pros and cons about custom elections. We don't intend to have custom elections at this time, but we would require more clarification with respect to that new section 80.1, understanding that some first nations intend to go that route. Custom elections, as we understand it, may be interpreted differently depending on the different tribes. In our case, it's Anishnabe in northwestern Ontario, and with respect to how we'd proceed with that one, it's still up in the air.

Do you have something else? Do you want to take over?

Chief Redsky: There's one more point with respect to fines and our by-laws. I'm not sure where it is in the modification act, but there's a clause that talks of provincial court systems. That makes it unclear for us when our reserve is in two provinces - both in the province of Ontario and in the province of Manitoba. We're not quite sure which province we would be dealing with in terms of any court process.

A follow-up question is that we don't know, and I haven't heard, whether Ontario or Manitoba is consenting to adjudicate these issues in terms of looking at our by-laws when we take it to whichever court is being talked about here, or indeed if it's a provincial court, because we're not sure if it's a federal court.

Those are some of the concerns we had. They're very minor, but we have to bring them out.

Mr. Campbell: Specifically with respect to changes to eliminate the intrusion by the government into the affairs of first nations, sections 32, 33, and 34 are excluded from operation under the modification act as we understand it.

We support this, because again, this was in our earlier statement in terms of these sections being paternalistic and interfering with the affairs of the first nations. We're glad to see the changes there.

Again, we support the elimination of sections 92 and 93. Section 92 prevented employees of the department, missionaries, and school teachers from trading for profit with an Indian without a licence issued by the minister. Again, this was an unnecessary intrusion into the affairs of the band. We'd like to have those kinds of local controls and the ability within the legislation to operate as a band government to carry these things out.

.1720

Chief Redsky: I don't think we have too much more to add to that, other than to say we do support the modification act because of the elimination of some of the paternalistic sections of the Indian Act. It gives us and our younger people a better chance at doing some of the things we were unable to do in our time.

Gentlemen and ladies, if you have any questions of us, we're finished.

The Chairman: Thank you very much for your presentation, Chief Redsky and Councillor Campbell.

We will now proceed to questions. I will start with Mr. John Duncan from the Reform Party.

Mr. John Duncan (North Island - Powell River, Ref.): Thank you for your presentation.

One basic question I have is this. You talked about liking what this act does for accountability and for elections. If that's the case - and we all know the current Indian Act has its problems in terms of ensuring that those two items are really taken care of - why should it be optional? This act is optional. Do you understand what I'm getting at here?

Chief Redsky: Yes. You're talking to the wrong people when you say ``optional'', because we want to opt into this one.

Mr. John Duncan: Yes, I understand that.

Chief Redsky: We're not afraid of being accountable. We want to be accountable. That's the part we really like about this modification act - the accountability to our band membership. Had we been afraid to be accountable, of course we'd oppose it.

Mr. John Duncan: I understand that. The very people who don't want to be accountable of course won't opt into it. That's the other side of the coin. I'm just unaware of any other legislation where you can choose which legislation -

We don't have parallel legislation that I can think of in other endeavours in Canada. We might have one piece of legislation that states within it that a clause may apply to specific areas, but we don't have two tandem pieces of legislation.

This is one of my chief concerns with the legislation. I've tried my best to explain it, and I appreciate where you're coming from. I understand where you're coming from.

Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Mr. Murphy.

Mr. John Murphy: Thank you very much, Chief Redsky and Councillor Campbell.

First off let me compliment you on your analysis of the bill. Many people have come not having had the opportunity to analyse, or not having taken the opportunity, but you certainly have done your homework. I compliment you.

If the bill should become law, how do you see the people who are off reserve getting involved with your community? What kind of process do you see happening? Your chiefs are very keen that those people you feel are disenfranchised, and that are living in Winnipeg...as you say, some relatives of yours. How do you see that process taking place to get their input, to be more a part of their homeland, their home community?

.1725

Chief Redsky: First of all, as I said before, without their ability to vote for us, for example - they're not able to vote currently - my belief has always been that our biggest resource is not financial but human. I know for a fact that a lot of our off-reserve band members are well educated. We're not utilizing that resource on the reserve, and we should be. They can't participate because they can't vote.

No, I'm not answerable to them, and I should be. They should take part in their lands. It's their land as much as mine. But they have no say in how our lands are going to be developed at the moment and in the future. They have no say whatsoever.

If I'm ever placed in a position of being off reserve - if the shoe's on the other foot - I have no say whatsoever, which frightens me. Politically, we all say we want equality, but do we really mean it? I don't think so. I've not seen it. This is an opportunity for us to be able to demonstrate that we want that equality.

I'm not scared of not being a chief. I want the best possible person leading our community and representing our people. If they're off reserve or on reserve, it doesn't really matter to me, as long as they're the best person. That's the way it should be. It's healthier for the whole community.

Mr. John Murphy: Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand: Gentlemen, thank you very much for your presentation. I have several questions and you may want to take notes since I would not want you to lose the thread.

Are you presently negotiating Treaty No. 3? Has there not been an agreement with the government on the process for negotiating Treaty No. 3? That is my first question.

It is my understanding that you intend to opt into the amendments. You probably know that if you opt in, you cannot opt out afterwards. There have been many discussions on this and the FNA says there is a danger. If you opt for the new act, other issues might get neglected because part of the department's resources will be redirected towards those who decide to opt in.

As was pointed out in many previous presentations we have heard, is there not a danger that people who are engaged in a treaty negotiation process will be told: you have now opted for the amended Indian Act and we are not in a hurry anymore to negotiate the treaty, whether it be Treaty No. 3, Treaty No. 5 or any one of the other ten numbered treaties? If you opt in, there is a danger that this will delay the updating of the treaties. This is my first main question.

Secondly, you said twice that it is important for you that members who live off reserve have a say in what is happening on the reserve, on the budget of the reserve or on the political issues in the reserve. According to my understanding, Bill C-79 will not grant any rights to off-reserve people. Furthermore, the present Indian Act defines who is a voter in section 2, the definitions section, and section 77 says that these voters must habitually reside on the reserve.

.1730

The new bill does not change any of this. I do not think you solve the problem of off-reserve people if you think they are going to have a say. According to my information, Bill C-79 does not correct this injustice.

Finally, I would like to have your opinion on the new legal status of a first nation, of a band. I heard many first nations say that they are not a municipality or a corporation, but very much a nation.

Bill C-79 will introduce a new legal status. This new legal status is opposed by many nations and by the FNA. I would like to have your opinion on this.

Is there not a danger that the concept of nation be reduced to that of an ordinary corporation or an ordinary municipality? First nations are proud to be a nation, not a municipality or a corporation.

This legal status has an impact on this. When you opt into Bill C-79, you have to take it as a whole. You cannot say that you will pick only one small part. You must into all the amendments before us.

I know have asked many questions, but I would like you to try to answer them as best as you can. Thank you.

[English]

Chief Redsky: On the first question, about Treaty No. 3, and negotiating an agreement in self-governance, as one first nation within the Treaty No. 3 territory we don't necessarily agree with how that is proceeding. That particular organization is looking at, in their view, a three-year process. We disagree with that. We don't think it should take three years. If there's a political will on both sides, it shouldn't take any more than several months. We've talked about it for many, many years. So three years of having negotiations for self-government is ludicrous, in my opinion. It's too long.

Previously I mentioned young people. They want action now, not three years down the road. People who want to prolong discussions like that -

Forgive me if I'm not mincing words here, but I don't like people who really milk the system. I for one do not want to milk the system for what it's worth. There are too many people - consultants, lawyers and what not - making far too much money at the expense of people living on reserve who don't see any changes because of all of these discussions taking place. They need to see results at the reserve level, at the community level.

In terms of opting in and not being able to opt out of the act, I'm not afraid of not being able to opt out. The act as it is now is a terrible act. Why should anybody want to stay in it? If there's room for improvement, however small, we want to take it. It's not worth opting back in. We've wanted to opt out of this act for more than 100 years. If we can at least see a crack in the window where we can sniff some fresh air, we want to do that.

I don't think this process is going to delay any treaty negotiations. We don't see it in that sense. We have to take a look at things and compartmentalize everything as we go. We can't just put everything in a pot. That's why we are not afraid to delay treaty negotiations. We've been negotiating for the last 100 years to have our treaties honoured. How long must we wait? There is no time limit in terms of treaty negotiations. They've been going on for a hundred years. So we're not losing anything in that sense.

.1735

As to your question about off-reserve people not necessarily automatically having the right to vote, if I'm still in council when we draft our regulations as to who can and who cannot vote, the way we understand the act is it's up to the council to decide. It's up to the people to decide, to make sure these people are treated with respect and treated the same as everybody else. It's our right to do that, I believe, to make sure they are given that opportunity. It is their right.

You brought up the question of legal status. I'm not a lawyer, so I can't answer a legal question. Maybe Tommy can shed more light on those questions.

Mr. Campbell: Okay, I'll take a minute to continue where Herb left off.

In terms of the definition of a nation or nationhood and the interpretation from our Anishnabe First Nation perspective, the Anishnabe people of our community in Shoal Lake have to take into account our treaty area, our homeland area - those areas we gain our life and our sustenance from. Within that there is a small piece of land called a reservation.

We interpret ourselves to be a nation. We see ourselves not as a municipality and not as a corporation. We have corporations; those are other economic arms of our government. We have a holding company, a trust company, and so forth, and we understand that corporate structure. But we are the government. The chief and council is the government of the day, guided by the elders council and by our elected youth council. That is our nationhood structure within our community.

Your second question was on opting in and the danger this may have with respect to the possible loss of resources. Part and parcel of the Indian Act problem and the problem with delivery of the services has been the policy, guided by the legislation, Indian Affairs district offices, regional offices, and all of the bureaucracy.

If by opting in we can have more control of this, even if we do lose some of those resources - in other words, some of those regions and districts - by all means, that's greater for us. We'll have more control and we'll be able to deliver a better product to our band members, both off and on the reserve, by doing that. So it's not a loss; it's a gain for us. That's why we want to support this.

The Chairman: Are there any other questions?

There being no more questions, thank you very much for an excellent presentation. Again, we appreciate you being early and accommodating this committee. Thank you.

Chief Redsky: You're welcome.

The Chairman: We will suspend these hearings until 6:20 p.m.

.1739

.1856

The Chairman: Hello, Winnipeg, from Ottawa. I almost said from Sudbury, but I'm not there.

We're happy to welcome Chief William Traverse from the Jackhead First Nation. We want to thank you for accepting to share with us your views on Bill C-79.

We also really appreciate that you agreed to come earlier than you had been scheduled. You were scheduled for 8 p.m. but agreed to come early. The committee members and also the support staff thank you very much, because everyone will be able to go home a little bit earlier.

Chief Traverse, we have 40 minutes together, and those minutes belong to you, although we would appreciate it if you would save some time for members to ask questions.

Having said that, I turn the floor over to you. You may start at your leisure.

Chief William Traverse (Jackhead First Nation): Thank you, meegwetch, and bonjour.

I am Anishinabek from Kinonjeashtegon, Jackhead Reserve in Manitoba.

I want to take this opportunity to explain a little bit further. Anishinabek people have a belief that the Creator put us here on this land, what you call Canada, and more specifically, Manitoba. The old people tell us that the Creator put us here and gave us everything - our language, our food, and our way of life.

I want to say, Mr. Chairman, with regard to my presentation on Bill C-79, that as Anishinabek people our forefathers made treaty with the Crown in right of England over 100 years ago. In that treaty our forefathers, as confirmed by our elders,

[Witness continues in his native language]

Everything was reserved for us. Our language, our culture, and our economic and social way of life were reserved for us as a people. That was at the time of treaty.

I guess for that reason I sent my letter to the standing committee late last week with regard to concerns we have as Anishinabek from Jackhead and also Anishinabek on behalf of the Interlakes Reserves Tribal Council - some 10,000 band members. So I speak not only for my reserve but also on behalf of Interlakes Reserves Tribal Council.

Although my language has been in Canada for centuries and centuries, Canada has not bothered to learn my language, so I'll speak to you in yours.

.1900

I am Chief Bill Traverse from the Jackhead First Nation. I speak for myself, my people, and the member first nations of the Interlakes Reserves Tribal Council in Manitoba.

My remarks will be brief and to the point. My first point is that your decision to limit hearings on Bill C-79 to one week, and then only by video teleconferencing, is unjust, insulting, and totally unacceptable.

Tell me, what other people in Canada have to speak to Parliament only via video camera? Is this any way to conduct dialogue? Is this respect? What others in Canada have been limited to presenting their views to Parliament through one week of video teleconferencing?

Did you force the minister to present his views to the committee via a video screen? Would the committee have adopted these limitations if it were anyone else than first nation people, Anishinabek people?

My second point is that this bill relates to important amendments to the Indian Act with potential disastrous consequences for our first nations peoples. We oppose it in the strongest possible terms. We ask you to reject it as well.

Third, this bill has been introduced by the Minister of Indian Affairs, Mr. Ron Irwin, against the express wishes of the strong majority of hundreds of first nations across Canada.

Fourth, the process in which the bill was written can be proven to have been devoid of meaningful consultation. The committee becomes an accomplice to the minister's deliberate omission by not providing for adequate opportunity for first nations to inform it of the strong opposition and the reasons for it.

The Supreme Court of Canada has set out a requirement of consultation where there is to be any infringement of rights, something that common decency and principles of fairness also dictate. This is in reference to Sparrow and others.

Fifth, we have seen absolutely no truth to the minister's demeaning proposition that the first nations are caught between supporting the Assembly of First Nations and his bill. National Chief Ovide Mercredi has simply responded responsibly to the widespread opposition the bill has generated and in no way has spearheaded opposition.

I attended the Assembly of First Nations gathering in Winnipeg in September and heard chief after chief stand and condemn the report. I did not hear any chiefs support it.

Sixth, the fact that the bill proposes optional changes does not take either the minister or the committee off the hook. The threshold for opting in is very low, requiring only a vote of majority of councillors. It does not call for any vote of the first nation itself. Once in, there is no way out for all eternity. Even the minister cannot get us out once we are in. The bill is thus very dangerous and must be opposed. If you want to pass the bill, at least make the requirement that opting in must be done by a strong majority vote of the members of the first nation, not just a councillor or two.

Seventh, in the past, your committee, under the chairmanship of Ian Watson, and subsequently Keith Penner, has had several decades of admirable tradition of non-partisanship. Until now, it has been one of the few available forums in which first nations could reach Parliament. We are exceedingly disappointed that you seem to have abandoned this tradition. We urge you to reconsider the manner in which you conduct hearings in the future, restoring the non-partisan forum to which we are entitled.

I have used this opportunity to speak so that there will be evidence of our total and strong opposition to this legislation and the absence of consultation. It has been a totally dishonest process. If we are forced to turn to courts for protection of our rights because our Parliament has failed to provide us with protections to which we are entitled, this statement will be in evidence.

.1905

Ninth, we are prepared to present a detailed analysis of our opposition to Bill C-79 any time the committee is prepared to provide us with the opportunity to do so with dignity. To do this through television cameras is just not acceptable, and this process should be viewed by all Canadians with considerable shame.

Tenth, we are disappointed that the members of Parliament, including those from Manitoba, have not had the courage to represent us on our interests in Parliament. Why should we have faith in the political process when we are treated in the way the minister, and now this committee, is treating us?

Those are my words. I don't even know if there is anyone listening on your side of this camera.

Meegwetch

The Chairman: Thank you for your presentation. As I said, the time belongs to you, so we have recorded your comments.

I do want you to know, though, that the procedure we follow with television is not unique to this committee. This is the way it's done now in Ottawa. The reason we do this is to save money, because when we came to Ottawa, we had to borrow $42 billion that year.

So we do this not only on this committee; it's on all committees, and it's to save money. We have no choice. At least you know that it's not unique to aboriginal peoples.

I will now open the floor for questions from members. Who will be first?

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand: Thank you for your presentation. You seem to be a very charismatic chief who really stands up for his first nation. I am very happy to meet you.

Since we are talking about teleconferencing, do you think that this process might discourage first nations from appearing in front of a camera since they would not know to whom they are talking, who is on the other side of the camera? Do you think First Nations would prefer to negotiate directly nation to nation?

Secondly, you mentioned that there has been very little consultation, while the minister says the opposite. Do you think written consultation, the process used by the minister, is sufficient in the present context? Do you think the bill will have a greater impact than what the minister is giving to understand? Thank you.

[English]

Chief Traverse: Mr. Bachand, on the first question, I feel very intimidated by this method of participation in regard to Bill C-79. I find it very intimidating. This is the first time in my 16 years as chief of my reserve that I have been put through something so artificial. It doesn't seem real at all.

I think this is not what Mr. Irwin promised us last year. We were told that we were going to have a travelling committee coming to our territory, and this is not what I had in mind. In fact, Mr. Irwin has failed us drastically in regard to something so fundamentally important in regard to Indian Act amendments.

I have very serious reservations and concerns about this mode of consultation. This is not what I had in mind at all. As I said, I feel very intimidated. I don't feel good sitting here. It doesn't have a human feeling, as opposed to sitting with you in committee, as I did at one time, way back when.

Would you repeat your second question, please, Mr. Bachand.

The Chairman: Chief, Mr. Bachand was asking about the consultation process. He can repeat it.

.1910

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand: Yes. I want to follow up on the consultation process. The minister told us there has been written consultation. But my party, the Bloc Québécois and myself, we believe that consultation is more than just an exchange of letters. Consultation means going out to first nations and explaining to them what is happening and what one wants to do. Do you think it is enough for proper consultation to send out a few letters or would you like to be consulted more closely on the bill before us?

I would like to mention, by the way, that the Bloc Québécois is opposed to the bill.

[English]

Chief Traverse: I thank you for that encouragement, Mr. Bachand, but I want to go back briefly to our national meeting here in Winnipeg in September, where Mr. Ron Irwin was present from about 10 in the morning until about 7 in the evening.

There was a national gathering of chiefs, council members, and band members. Over 800 people were present at that two-day forum, but Mr. Ron Irwin, as Minister of Indian Affairs, was only there one day.

From the time Mr. Irwin came into the assembly.... At no time during that whole day did I hear anybody, any chief, speak in support of Mr. Ron Irwin's unilateral...without our consultation, to put in place these amendments.

I have a terrible time today believing in what Mr. Ron Irwin says. He says one thing and does something else. We find that very troublesome in light of the framework agreement process in Manitoba. I have a terrible time, when Mr. Ron Irwin tells me something today, believing him tomorrow.

The consultation he talks about.... You know, there are over 500 chiefs and councils across Canada. Yes, he did send letters, but there were only 64 responses. Does the minority control the majority here? I don't think so.

I think the majority of the chiefs, the majority of the Indian reservations across Canada, should be heard, and must be heard in person, not through teleconferencing. I totally disagree with this process at which I'm sitting tonight, Mr. Bachand. I hope that answers your questions.

Mr. Claude Bachand: Yes, thank you.

The Chairman: Is there anyone else? Since there are no more questions, I would like to thank you very much for your presentation. All that you have presented has been recorded and will be considered by the committee.

Thank you very much, Chief Traverse. If you wish to make closing remarks, you may express them at any time.

Chief Traverse: For the record, Mr. Chairman, in regard to National Chief Ovide Mercredi's presentation on this matter, I believe the national chief made a presentation - I'm not sure what day it was - to this committee, as I understand it. Am I correct?

The Chairman: Yes, it was March 6, last Thursday.

Chief Traverse: The national chief's presentation has the full support of the Interlake chiefs of Manitoba. The contents are his condemnation of what Mr. Irwin has done here.

Very briefly in regard to consent, Mr. Chairman, when our forefathers made a treaty, that was a good deal. We wanted to share our land and resources with you. But in terms of realizing that treaty today, 100 years later, we have not experienced that today because of this Indian Act.

The Indian Act is a paternalistic document. Yet, when it came into being, our people had no say. We never gave our consent to this Indian Act.

Also, further to that, when he signed the framework agreement Mr. Irwin said, I want to give these people back their jurisdictions. Yet the Indian Act amendment process in regard to Bill C-79 seriously jeopardizes that process today.

.1915

I just wanted to make that comment and proposal, Mr. Chairman. I don't have any other thing I have to say, other than to make it known again that I am totally.... This process, this teleconferencing thing, is totally unacceptable. It's inhuman. It's artificial.

I wish you could come to my reserve, talk to the elders and youth in my community. This is what we had in mind, this is what we wanted, and this is what Mr. Ron Irwin promised. We don't have that, and yet he's supposed to be responsible for Indians and lands reserved for Indians. He's supposed to protect our interests, and yet everything he's done today, as I see it, threatens our very existence as a people.

So I want to say that much, Mr. Chairman.

Kichi meegwetch, and all your members too. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

We will suspend proceedings until the next witness either shows up or indicates otherwise.

.1918

.1933

The Chairman: We'll resume our hearings. We have before us Grand Chief Harold Turner from the Swampy Cree Tribal Council. We thank you for being with us.

Grand Chief, I would like you to name your colleague for us and tell us what role you play on the council.

Grand Chief Harold Turner (Swampy Cree Tribal Council): My name is Chief Harold Turner from Grand Rapids First Nation. I'm also the grand chief of the Swampy Cree Tribal Council. With me is Chief Francis Flett of Opaskwayak Cree Nation, who is also a member of our tribal council.

The Chairman: I thank you very much for being with us, Chiefs. We have 40 minutes together, and those 40 minutes belong to you. You may use them in any way you wish, but we would appreciate it if you would allow some time after for members to ask questions of you.

My name is Ray Bonin. I'm chair of the committee. I have with me Claude Bachand from the Bloc Québécois and Elijah Harper from the Liberal Party.

As I said, the time is yours. Please proceed at your leisure.

Grand Chief Turner: I don't need to reintroduce myself. I also have five of our technicians with me.

We thank you for the opportunity to present your government with the position of our first nations governments and the Swampy Cree Tribal Council territory on the recent process to amend the Indian Act.

The Swampy Cree Tribal Council represents eight first nations in our tribal territory, centred around the Opaskwayak Cree Nation in The Pas area. We represent 10,000 first nations members.

To start our presentation we must be very open, straightforward, and very clear in stating what our political and legal position is with respect to Canada's latest attempts to amend the Indian Act: these must be scrapped.

.1935

Long before Canada ever existed, we were sovereign and had supreme authority over our lands. We had our own laws before Canada was formed through Confederation and the British North America Act in 1867 and before the Indian Act was enacted in 1876. The Indian Act was the primary legislation for the administration of Canada's obligations.

Regardless of how our people understood the treaties, in reality it is not the treaties that define our relationship with Canada, but they should. That relationship is set out in the Indian Act. The Indian Act was to be purely administrative, but it has been used by Canada to regulate every aspect of life for our first nations people. It defines who we are as native people and everything else.

The Indian Act has imposed legislation on our people. We were never consulted in its development, as with the British Royal Proclamation in 1763. The effect has been that our lands, laws, governments, and cultures have been taken away from us without Canada ever having to honour any of their aboriginal and treaty obligations.

The Indian Act has been used by Canada to guide the relationship between first nations in Canada, and it should not be binding on us. We did not agree to it, but we are subject to it. Our chiefs and councils must satisfy government bureaucrats rather than our own people. Canada cannot amend our relationship by amending the Indian Act and amending their obligations without proper consultation with our first nations.

In the treaties, Canada obliged itself to take care of any of the needs of the first nations as part of our exchange of promises and our nation-to-nation relationship. Here is what our people understand even to this day. The Indian Act has been used by Canada to take away our lives. Whenever we talk about the Indian Act we talk about the obligations Canada has for the first nations. Whenever we talk about amending the Indian Act, we must also talk about the amendment of Canada's obligations.

This should not be the case. Canada's obligations should be derived from the treaties. Canada needs only to implement these long-standing promises. You should understand that it is hard for us to be specific about what the problems are with these amendments, and it is hard for us to say what the negative impacts will be on our treaty and aboriginal rights and Canada's treaty and fiduciary obligations.

The problem for us is that Canada is always trying to solve something called ``the Indian problem''. Somehow it ends up that we must always fight to protect our nations and our people from being assimilated or our rights from being eroded. When Canada says the inherent right to self-government and a nation-to-nation relationship means municipal self-government delegated to us from Canada and the provinces, we know Canada is not acting in our best interests, and it is surely not what first nations want.

We have already honoured our obligations to Canada by sharing our lands, and we have failed miserably in trying to regain our original land entitlements through the treaties. We have kept a piece of the Crown, even though Canada has not met its obligations to us. For example, Canada continues to share in the natural resources beyond what were the true spirit and intent of the treaties. Canada also refuses us our own justice systems and courts through which we can maintain peace in Canada for our own people.

The only way things are going to change is if Canada recognizes our first nations governments with their own powers to legislate for themselves. The inherent right to self-government means that the Swampy Cree Tribal Council and member first nations are able to legislate for themselves.

Canada has a fiduciary duty to protect aboriginal rights and to safeguard their obligations to the first nations. We are often forced to fight the very fiduciary that has promised to protect our rights when we have to negotiate better conditions for our people and fight laws that narrow and limit our government powers and the rights of our people. In order for us to determine if Canada is protecting our governments and our rights, we have to wait until we have lost our rights or until we find out that Canada's guarantees are not worth the paper they are written on. Only then it is too late. Therefore, we have to view these Indian Act amendments in perspective. We do not believe we are really going to gain anything significant from these changes. The changes will have significant negative impacts by shifting Order in Council powers from cabinet to the minister.

.1940

We do not see the Indian Act as our means of self-governance, but it is the Indian Act that Canada uses to administer its obligations to our first nations governments and people.

Why should we hang onto the Indian Act in its present form when in Manitoba we have a process to amend or repeal the Indian Act under principle 5 of the FAI process agreed to by the first nations of Manitoba and Canada?

The minister has undermined this process with these Indian Act amendments. The Minister of Indian Affairs has not addressed the real issues that first nations want changed.

One of the most important is section 88, and we know that this section was not changed because it has continued to offload its responsibility onto the provinces. The reason for this is that Canada is transferring more federal powers to the provinces for first nations services, which means that Canada does not want the responsibility for first nations people.

The present Indian Act still carries with it many of the roots that were planted at the time of contact between our governments. It has become a part of our history as nations and part of the promises that we made to each other as nations.

Section 91.24 of the British North America Act opened a constitutional space for Canada to enact legislation dealing with Indians and lands reserved for Indians without interference from the provinces of the Confederation of Canada.

However, the standing committee should be aware that Liberal policies that have threatened to destroy our people are nothing new. Diamond Jenness presented a paper entitled ``Plan for Liquidating Canada's Indian Problem Within 25 Years'' to the 1947 special joint committee on the Indian Act, a plan that has been followed by the Government of Canada.

It was the Trudeau administration, with Chrétien as Minister of Indian Affairs in 1969, that initiated the infamous white paper. This assimilation and policy was met with grave concern and numerous responses from first nations at that time, including the Manitoba first nations, who responded in a document called Wahbung.

When we talk of these latest amendments to the act we can talk of the changes to section 2, which creates legal personalities for first nations as defined by Canadian parliaments, legislatures, and courts. Why does Canada insist on defining our governments? We already have been recognized by your courts as having the right to sue and to be sued and to enter into contracts, just like any other government.

If Canada wants to change the Indian Act it should refer to the Indian bands as first nations governments that are able to define their own forms of first nations government departments. First nations should be able to impose tax, including income tax, corporate tax, and licensing fees, for non-first-nations governments and businesses dealing within first nations territories.

The move by your Minister of Indian Affairs to propose Bill C-79, the Indian Act Optional Modification Act, is a very clever scheme. It is a clever attempt to fool the first nations, the Canadian people, and the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, because it is disguised for the public as being good for us, that our ``father knows best'', the old paternalistic attitude. Canada has made it easy to obtain by a simple band council resolution, without the band council consulting with its members.

Do not forget that our minister has also proposed in the bill that first nations that opt in will be able to pass band council resolutions without holding a duly convened band council meeting. They can sign a resolution as corporate directors do.

That is not how our first nations governments make decisions and that is not how your governments are operating. Or is it? It is simply not acceptable to do business in that fashion.

There is also no provision for opting out. The only way to do so would be to contract out of the Indian Act by way of a self-government agreement, and we know how difficult and time-consuming that is when Canada does not provide the resources to do it.

We cannot pick and choose which sections our people want and which they don't want. It is all or nothing. That is not the way responsible governments deal with each other. In addition, there are many amendments that may have far-reaching implications for our first nations and our aboriginal and treaty rights.

We did not have the time to fully analyse the implications because of the time constraints imposed by Canada. It seems that our minister is ramming these amendments through Parliament via the shortest route possible. He has failed to honour his word to first nations that we would have an opportunity for extensive consultations to express our concerns regarding Bill C-79. There is also fear that those first nations that don't opt in will be penalized by the government in terms of funding and treatment.

.1945

To conclude our presentation, we encourage you as standing committee members to recommend that the current system of dealing with our first nations must stop. Canada must change the way it does business with our people and practice their popular quote of ``working in partnership with first nations'' rather than providing lip service. Canada must recognize our first nations as a government. We also urge you to recommend to Parliament that these amendments should be scrapped and started over again, with full consultations with our first nations and our people.

I'll turn the microphone over to Chief Francis Flett.

Chief Francis Flett (Opaskwayak Cree Nation): Thank you. My name is Chief Francis Flett. I'll go right into my presentation and read the material we have prepared.

The Swampy Cree Tribal Council has never been in favour of amending the Indian Act. It never has been our priority. Our first priority has been our process here in Manitoba for eliminating the Department of Indian Affairs and reaffirming our relationship as first nations with Canada under the framework agreement initiative process.

For the Swampy Cree Tribal Council first nations, we have committed ourselves to this process of strengthening our government-to-government relationship with Canada, which is something the present Indian Act Optional Modification Act will not do. Before this legislation was optional to first nations, we had no choice, but because the first nations in Manitoba spoke out against that legislation, at the very least it is now an option to refuse to opt in.

The Honourable Minister of Indian Affairs, Ron Irwin, should have consulted with the Swampy Cree Tribal Council if Canada really wanted to amend the Indian Act for the benefit of our people. We would have told him what we have been saying for years, that you cannot go about amending the act if it is not for the benefit of first nations people. There must be extensive consultation by first nations with their own people. Otherwise the legislation will just screw things up. And we do not want worthless guarantees from your minister, your Prime Minister, or your bureaucrats.

Treaty Indian status and band membership is a sovereign and inherent right of our first nations governments as nations. If the Minister of Indian Affairs really want to do something for us in amending the act, he should have come and asked me. I would have told him that our people remember the last time Canada meddled with the Indian Act. Our people remember that Canada did not represent our inherent rights and did not respect their treaty and fiduciary obligations. We know this because every day we live with subsection 6(2) of the 1985 Bill C-31 amendments to the Indian Act. It threatens to make our people eventually disappear. To us this is genocide.

It is only 12 years ago that Canada imposed this amendment on us. This change was not optional. The only thing optional about subsection 6(2) is that Canada, and not first nations, decides who it will recognize as an Indian. Under the Indian Act it is up to Canada to determine to whom it has a treaty and fiduciary obligation. This seems like a fox-in-a-hen-house scenario to me.

As the Swampy Cree Tribal Council member first nations, we hold a political and legal view that anyone who is entitled to be recognized as a member of our first nations should also be legally recognized by Canada under the Indian Act. Our government's laws, under our citizenship codes, recognize any first nation member if they have at least one parent who is a member of that first nation. But under the Indian Act, subsection 6(2), only one generation can have just one parent who is a first nation member. After that generation, Canada will not recognize the children and grandchildren of that first nation member under the Indian Act, nor will they honour their treaty or fiduciary obligations to those children and grandchildren.

.1950

The 1985 Bill C-31 subsection 6(2) rules for Indian status made the rules even more complicated than the 1951 amendment to the Indian Act and created a paper blood system that has absolutely nothing to do with the membership, ancestry, and culture of our people. If we want to amend the Indian Act, the first thing we should do is correct the mistakes Canada made in the past, and this means repealing subsection 6(2).

In 1985 Canada guaranteed that nothing in Bill C-31 would have any negative effects on Canada's obligations to us, but Canada did not live up to its obligations. How are we to believe that Canada will ever meet its obligations to our members who are not recognized by Canada under subsection 6(2) of the Indian Act?

The issues I am speaking to you about are not new and have been studied by our government.

In 1992 the Assembly of First Nations concluded a study of the impact of section 2 on future Indian populations of first nations. That is the report I hold before you today. Soon the numbers of our first nations, whom Canada legally recognizes under section 6 of the Indian Act, will be decreasing, while any actual but not recognized populations will be increasing. We call this genocide by disappearance. The existence of our first nations people as recognized by Canada will have disappeared. This is Canada's solution to the Indian problem: to make our first nations people disappear by defining us out of existence.

Canada is denying its constitutional and treaty obligations to our governments and our people. For 125 years we have criticized the Indian Act, but when Canada changed it, new injustices were created.

In 1982, Dr. David Ahenakew, head of the Assembly of First Nations, appeared before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development and stated that first nations should be allowed to decide their own membership. He submitted that section 12 of the Indian Act, which eliminated Indian status for women, should be removed from the act. The parts of section 11 of the act that legally recognized the Indian status of our first nations members should have stayed in the Indian Act and should have applied equally to our first nations men, women, children, and the future generations.

We have stated many times that we have the inherent right to control our own membership. When you have finished these hearings, the Swampy Cree people ask you to recommend to Canada that it start over, scrap these amendments, scrap subsection 6(2), and start living up to and honouring the promises and obligations it has to the first nations of Canada.

This is the end of our presentation. We want to leave you with the words of the honourable member of Parliament for Rupert's Land, Elijah Harper, which I believe you have already heard in a hearing and which I want to emphasize. He said in his biography:

The Indian Act is like a penitentiary, with the Indian people as the inmates. Changing the act does not get the inmates out of jail. When you change the Indian Act, all you are doing is extending the chain a little longer. That's all.

Maybe now, Elijah, it's time for you to get your feather out again and just say ``no''.

The Chairman: Thank you very much for two excellent presentations. Now we will proceed to questions from members. Who wishes to start? Elijah Harper.

Mr. Elijah Harper: Thank you, Francis and Harold, for your presentation.

.1955

As a matter of fact, I took my feather out today and gave it to the Speaker, to show that the Speaker also needs a feather to deal with a lot of issues and to honour the spirit and the relationship that aboriginal people should have with this country. So I did take my feather out today.

I wanted to ask you some questions about this process. I know that the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs has a process in place, which is the framework initiative. I know that the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs was concerned about the Indian Act amendments as originally proposed. I know you moved a motion, Chief Flett, regarding these amendments, to the effect they should be optional because they contradict the framework initiative. That was done. The minister has made them optional.

There is also a non-derogation clause, by which treaty and aboriginal rights, including the inherent right to self-government, will not be affected. It is also included in your framework initiative that these rights will remain unaffected but will be a basis for the new relationship.

I believe that's the other part of the principles that are included in the framework initiative.

I believe that's the process the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs has, and I think this is the route to take. I see this process ultimately replacing the Indian Act. You have an opportunity there to establish a true relationship on a nation-to-nation basis and the treaty obligations.

I strongly believe that. I belong to northern Manitoba, and I've always felt that the rights will be maintained by our people, no matter what, and that we'll survive until the end. That's the basis of our relationship and will continue to be. Even given what governments have tried...they have not succeeded. That will always prevail. I have every confidence in our people to maintain it.

It's a little bit hard for me to sit on this side, in a non-aboriginal institution. I've been placed here, not just by my own people but also by most of the aboriginal people in northern Manitoba, to defend the rights of our people. I've done that with the dignity and integrity of our people. That will always continue. I will never compromise our rights.

Suggestions have been made about making this optional...about this treaty on aboriginal rights not being derogated or abrogated by government. These are things that I have pursued, and with the support of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs we have obtained that. We have a process in place that is not necessarily available to other first nations across Canada. I believe this process will ultimately lead to the eradication of the Indian Act itself.

I believe we can establish the true relationship, the financial arrangements. I believe sometime in the future the transfer payments can be made directly to first nations instead of through contribution agreements. Those are things that I see happening in this whole process. I look forward to it and to working with you and the government.

.2000

I sometimes have sleepless nights over where I should go, but I know that the identity, dignity, and integrity our people have and the support I've had, not just from the chiefs but also in terms of the upbringing I've had from my grandfather and parents, are things that continue to help me. I'll tell you this: I'll never compromise in terms of our people.

As you say, it's not simply saying no. We have to take this approach and accept the challenges, and I do that with your help. I know this framework agreement initiative is a very important process and I don't want to see it derailed at all. I want to see a continuation so we can resolve many of these issues.

You mentioned my quotations about the Indian Act extending the chains if we deal with those amendments, but that act is in place. Obviously, we have to deal with that and replace it. I see a light at the end of this tunnel, hope for our people, for our children.

I can go back and say that amending the Indian Act today will resolve the problems at home and with the children. I can tell you some personal things. For instance, my own nephew was flown down the other day because he swallowed a whole bunch of pills; he was trying to commit suicide. I experience those things as an Indian person.

I'm operating at this level and it's not easy. We'll continue to work together. I continue to represent the interests of our people.

I just wanted to say that the intention of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, including the Swampy Cree Tribal Council, is to continue to work on the framework initiatives as opposed to this process. That is my understanding. Maybe you can explain it to us. Thank you.

The Chairman: Do you wish to respond?

Grand Chief Turner: With respect to your comments on why my colleague, Chief Francis Flett, wanted that optional clause...[Technical Difficulty - Editor]...for the simple fact that there will be some government influence anyway. If we let the government speak for our people across this country, then at least we have the option of whether to accept these amendments.

Regardless of that fact, the problem we've been having and the problem we continue to have with the Minister of Indian Affairs is that his attitude is paternalistic and he's going to shove down anything he wants because he thinks he knows what's better for us. That's the problem. I'm very happy to hear that he's not seeking re-election.

Certainly the government has to look at the future. When they select a Minister of Indian Affairs they should be sure it's a person who is going to deal fairly with the first nations of this country.

Let me ask you this, Elijah. When is the government going to select a person of native ancestry to head up Indian Affairs?

Mr. Elijah Harper: I'm not in a position to answer that. I'm just one of the members of Parliament, as you know. As I said earlier, I'm placed here by our people, and it is an honour and a privilege to have that confidence.

It hasn't been easy to work in a non-aboriginal institution, to pursue...and to make people understand. Part of the problem is not necessarily to change people. What you're dealing with is a whole history. To unravel the whole history, to change the institutions and the attitudes that have been placed here over centuries is something that I think needs to happen.

.2005

As I said, I can easily get caught up in being negative and give up, but I don't want to do that. I don't think it's responsible for me to say I give up, I resign, and get out of the whole process. I think you need to continue banging heads and fighting these things.

I'm not the type to back off and allow it to happen. I don't know whether we'll ever have an aboriginal person in the position of Minister of Indian Affairs...unless there is political will for it to happen.

I think our people have always honoured their commitments and promises, and that's a comfort to me. We do that. At least we don't go below it; we're always above it. That's what keeps me going and keeps me pursuing these things.

I can't answer that for you. I guess you can ask the Prime Minister directly to put someone in there. Of course, I'd like to see someone very committed in that position. It's not easy to be put in the position of minister.

I was in that position before, when I was in government in Manitoba. I used to be Minister of Northern Affairs and Minister responsible for Indian Affairs, and I was responsible for settling treaty land entitlement.

It's a very difficult position to be in. I can't answer that for you directly, but in terms of having someone in the position of Minister of Indian Affairs with whom aboriginal people feel comfortable, whom they can trust.... You have to work together.

The Chairman: Before I go on to Mr. Bachand, as chair I try to be as impartial as I possibly can, but having known Elijah for almost four years now, I think he would be an excellent Minister of Indian Affairs. I can say that with a lot of confidence.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand: Mr. Turner, Mr. Flett, thank you for your presentation.

You mentioned earlier that many people feel duped by the bill before us. I will state right away that the Bloc Québécois is opposed to Bill C-79, but I believe you know this already.

I would like to make a small comment on what Mr. Harper just said. I recognize that he is in a very difficult position. It is true that if you are aboriginal and 85 per cent of your people are opposed to a bill, it is not easy to have discussions with the very government that wants to push the bill through, but you should suggest to Mr. Harper that he encourage Mr. Anawak and Mrs. Blondin, who are also of aboriginal ancestry, to join him in opposing this bill, which would enlighten the government as to their position.

The Chairman: I must call you to order. I paid a compliment to Mr. Harper, but I think that if you make a negative statement, you should not involve members personally. Thank you.

Mr. Claude Bachand: Very well. Without being negative, I think you should tell people who belong to first nations and who sit in the House of Commons to vote against this bill. I do not think this would be a negative thing to do for them. They would simply affirm their links with the first nations of Canada, of whom 85 per cent reject this bill.

Let us get back to the consultation. The minister told us that he consulted by way of letters and that, since 70 first nations answered, he believes he has a mandate to proceed. Is this a satisfactory process, in your view? Is the fact that some 70 nations supposedly answered sufficient to proceed with the bill we have before us today?

.2010

I also have a question regarding legal status. Do you not find it somewhat irritating that the bill before us alludes to the legal status of first nations? It says they can be viewed as municipalities or corporations, but certainly not as nations.

It seems to me this is an extremely controversial aspect and that it is unacceptable to tell people, who know they belong to a nation, that they will be treated as a corporation or a municipality and that they have no other legal status than that of an ordinary person.

I hope you will provide a few answers to my questions. But I do not want you to think, following what I said, that I am against anybody. I do not hate anybody. I did not say Mr. Harper would not be a good minister of Indian Affairs. But I think he could not become Minister of Indian Affairs because, unfortunately, the present system does not allow it.

However, if representatives of first nations who sit in the House stood to vote against this bill, the government would probably understand that it is acting without their agreement. I believe this is also what Mr. Flett meant when he said that Mr. Harper should take out his eagle's feather.

[English]

The Chairman: Do you wish to respond to that?

Chief Flett: First of all, I want to say that I think Elijah made some comments about the AMC, but the position presented here today is the position of the Swampy Cree Tribal Council.

He also mentioned his nephew and feeling pain for him. I can relate to that because I myself have 80 first nations members who are not recognized by the Canadian government to be status Indians. We certainly can relate to that.

One of the comments we want to make about consultation is that when you send a few letters to us, if that's considered by the Canadian government to be consultation with native people, I say that's not enough and it shouldn't be considered as consultation.

Our position on consultation is going back to the communities and talking to everyone for their input into whatever it is we are trying to do or change. The legal status of our nation, and to be classified as a non-native...I don't think I've ever heard of another society where they try to change someone who is either African, Swedish, German, English, or Portuguese. They never determine who those people are when they immigrate to this country. They classify them as Canadians.

I just wanted to clarify that because I don't want anybody misunderstanding the position we have on our status and the importance of our status. When we mentioned that eventually in 20 years' time, if the government succeeds in continuing on with the way the present system is right now...I don't think we can live with that, and I don't think people, especially native people, will allow that.

I think if the Canadian government could see our position and our side of it, they would understand. We've never classified anybody as half and half. When the Europeans came here, that's when the half and half classification clause started and people said you're no longer an Indian.

To us, keeping the status alive is very important to our people. I don't think our status should be classified by whether the Government of Canada has to spend money from their treaty obligation.

Also, if Canada wants to change the Indian Act they should refer to the Indian bands as first nations government, able to define their own first nations government departments. That's what they should be looking at.

And I'm pretty sure Elijah would make a good minister too.

.2015

The Chairman: We agree on that.

Are there any more comments from the members?

Thank you very much for both presentations. We really appreciate the time we've spent together.

I think these are the last witnesses we have, so we will say good night to our friends in Winnipeg, Manitoba. Thank you very much.

Chief Flett: Good night.

Grand Chief Turner: Good night.

The Chairman: The hearings are suspended until 9 a.m. tomorrow.

Return to Committee Home Page