[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, March 13, 1997
.0935 
[English]
The Chairman (Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.)): The Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development will resume public hearings on Bill C-79, an act to permit certain modifications to the application of the Indian Act to bands that desire them.
We have with us from Moncton, from the Union of New Brunswick Indians, Chief Second Peter Barlow.
Chief Barlow, we have 40 minutes together. Those minutes belong to you. You may use them in any way you wish. We would appreciate it, though, if you would allow some time afterwards for questions from members.
Having said that, you may proceed.
Chief Peter Barlow (Union of New Brunswick Indians): Okay, Mr. Chairman. My talk about Bill C-79 will be quite brief.
The bill to amend the Indian Act, we feel as the aboriginal leadership of New Brunswick, is being forced on us by the Minister of Indian Affairs. When he came to the House of Commons with the legislation, we were adamant and quite clear that we were not in favour of the proposed legislation, because the proper consultation process has not taken place with the aboriginal people of Canada, particularly the aboriginal leadership of New Brunswick. Our input was minimal.
We view the process as very paternalistic, dating back to when the Indian Act was enacted for the aboriginal people of Canada. If you are to forge a new relationship with the aboriginal people of Canada, it must be done in consultation with aboriginal people. We can no longer stand aside and have the government of the day propose and enact legislation on our behalf without our direct input. You are not dealing with aboriginal people of the 17th and 18th centuries any more. We are much more educated and we, if anyone, know what our wants and needs are. It would be us and not the Government of Canada and not Minister Ron Irwin.
We have many problems in our first nations, it is true, and the proposed legislation was to address some of those issues. However, if we are going to have reasonable and meaningful dialogue, we must be consulted in a meaningful way. That has not happened with this proposed legislation. We view it as a continuation of a 1969 white paper policy...and the implementation process of Mr. Irwin and the Chrétien Liberal government at this time.
It has always been my belief that the people who are elected by their people to sit in Ottawa and represent their views must go there and have strong convictions to represent their people. I, as a first nation leader, am elected by my people. I do not do what other people want me to do, I do what my people want me to do. I represent their views. I do not hold any party line; I do not hold any particular line; what my people ask me to do is what I do.
I feel sorry for the members of Parliament who are forced into a system of government that is supposed to be democratic but becomes unilateral in practice. When you get there, if you do not hold to the party line, you are removed from caucus or from the party. How can you have open and meaningful government when you are doing that and if you are not able to represent your people's views the way they want you to?
There are some things not being addressed through the proposed amendments. I want to give you an analogy.
In terms of the Indian Act, one piece of legislation that is not being looked at is the creation of new first nations. We have our first nations set aside with very few land bases. If we are to have self-government and meaningful dialogue, we must have a land base. We do not have that land base within our first nations. Our first nations are over-crowded. This is what's leading to the social ills within our first nations.
.0940
What we propose to you as members of Parliament is that we be allowed to have our own self-determination.
You can bring all the Vietnamese people you want into Canada, you can bring all the German people you want into Canada, and once they become Canadian citizens these people can start their own communities under the Canadian system of government, yet we are restricted by the Indian Act. We as aboriginal people, the first people of this land, cannot establish new communities when we see fit. That is a very paternalistic attitude to have towards the aboriginal people of Canada. We have to have the right to start new communities for our people when we see fit.
I have with me today a number of different aboriginal organizations from the Atlantic provinces. I have people here from the Union of Nova Scotia Indians, who will be making a presentation to you. I have people here from the Aboriginal Peoples Council of Canada. I have people here from the Confederacy of Mainland Micmacs. These people also have presentations that they wish to make to you.
I wasn't sure whether we had 40 minutes in total or whether the 40 minutes was for me. Could you clarify that for me now, please.
The Chairman: At this time we are hearing from you for 40 minutes total. If you wish to bring in someone to share your presentation, you may do that. There are others on the list - we're sitting until late this afternoon - so if they're not on the list, they will not have an opportunity to present unless you share your time with them.
Chief Barlow: Who is the next group that you will hear from?
The Chairman: It's the Atlantic Policy Congress. After that it's the Nova Scotia and Newfoundland Secretariat of the Assembly of First Nations. Then we have the Confederacy of Mainland Micmacs, and then the Assembly of First Nations, New Brunswick and P.E.I.
This afternoon we will be hearing from Treaty NWT 8 Tribal Council.
We're going to Yellowknife this afternoon. This morning does it for the Maritimes.
With the Atlantic Policy Congress we have the Mawiw Council.
I don't want to use up your 40 minutes, but if you wish to share it I will accept it.
Chief Barlow: I would just like to reiterate that we are not in favour of the proposed legislation and that this paternalistic attitude by the department has to stop and meaningful consultation with our people has to take place before such legislation is enacted on our behalf.
I will now turn the floor over to the second group, and I ask you to respect the wishes of the aboriginal people of Canada. Since 85% of our people state that they are not in favour of legislation that is going to affect us, quite possibly very adversely, we ask that you take this to cabinet, take this to caucus, take this to the Prime Minister of Canada and say the aboriginal people of Canada are not in favour of this proposed legislation and withdraw it. Thank you.
The Chairman: Before you move on, when you say you'll let the second group present, are you talking about the Atlantic Policy Congress - they don't come on until we finish our 40 minutes - or are you telling us that you're sharing your time with someone?
Chief Barlow: I'm trying to speed up the process here. Do you have any questions for me about this?
.0945
The Chairman: This is why I wanted to know if you were sharing your time or if you were guiding our agenda for us. If it's the Atlantic Policy Congress, we don't want their presentation now. We will want it in a few minutes. This is your 40 minutes right now.
Before we go on I will mention that any group that doesn't get on may make a written presentation, as has been advertised. Every band has been advised of this. We must receive it on or before Wednesday of next week.
So we'll open it up to questions at this time. Who wishes to start?
From the Bloc Québécois, Monsieur Claude Bachand.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Barlow, you could perhaps first explain to us what the Union of New Brunswick Indians is and who it represents exactly in New Brunswick. Are there several groups belonging to your Union?
The minister says that there was consultation because he wrote a few letters to the First Nations and reportedly received some 70 answers from the communities contacted. In your view and in accordance with aboriginal tradition, is consultation through correspondence valid? As you will conclude from my questions to you, the Bloc Québécois is itself also opposed to Bill C-79.
I would therefore ask you to explain to us who the Union of New Brunswick Indians represents. I would also ask you to explain to us how, in accordance with aboriginal tradition, real consultation should be conducted. Do you consider that an exchange of letters is adequate?
[English]
Chief Barlow: As the president of the Union of New Brunswick Indians I represent 12 of the 15 first nations in the province of New Brunswick. I do not take a letter from the minister to my office to be consultation. I write many letters in the run of a week. I do not consider that consultation with any person.
Consultation to me means a meaningful dialogue face to face with a group of bureaucrats or governments and expounding our views and discussing those views. A letter from the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to me or to any individual chief does not constitute consultation. It is mere correspondence.
I think Minister Irwin is confused in terms of the English language in what is ``correspondence'' and what is ``consultation''. As a somewhat fairly uneducated aboriginal person, I am quite aware of the difference between correspondence and consultation. To have meaningful consultation means to sit down and have a dialogue over a set period of time, and what would come of that is a written document on what the consultation process entailed - what we agreed to and what we did not agree to.
In terms of the bill before you that we are discussing, my first nation was very adamant that we were not in favour of this. In fact, 85% of the first nations in Canada have written to the minister stating very eloquently and very clearly that they're not in favour of the proposed legislation. The people who are in favour of this proposed legislation are a select group who Minister Irwin has put together. They are trying to use the back-door entry on the taxation issue to sell taxation powers to first nations governments.
We are being very generous in saying 15% of the first nations of Canada are in favour of this proposed legislation. I don't think it is that high. I would put it somewhere around 5% to 7%, and taking the other 8% who were not heard from to mean that they were in favour of the proposed legislation.
.0950
Still, 15% by no means constitutes a majority in my mind, or in the Canadian public's mind. I hope I've answered your questions. If you have a supplementary question, I would be prepared to answer that as well.
The Chairman: This is the chair speaking. Because this is another full day for us, I would like to clarify for everyone that the bill does not belong to the minister any longer. It belongs to the House of Commons.
At one time it was the minister's bill, but once it's tabled it belongs to the House of Commons. So it's not a question of going back to the caucus or to the Prime Minister or the minister. This committee is a multi-party committee, and the direction of the bill, once we're through with it, is back to the House of Commons. I'd like that to be known. And it has to be known that this is optional. No one seems to understand that this is an optional piece of legislation that may be accepted or not.
The other point I want to make early in the day is that everyone presenting seems to be wanting the minister to visit their band. There are 608 bands, I understand, plus the territories and the Yukon. It would mean two years, at one band a day, for the minister. So although it would be very nice, it's not practical.
The teleconferencing system we're using is not unique to this committee. It's the way we do things now in Ottawa in all committees for the simple reason that there's no more money to do it the way we did it in the past.
I say this to make sure no one is left with the impression that this committee is treated differently from the other committees. Having said that I'll move on to anyone who has other questions.
Monsieur Bachand, from the Bloc Québécois.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to clarify one point with respect to what you've just mentioned. It is true that the bill belongs neither to the minister nor to the prime minister. At the present time, in accordance with parliamentary procedure, it belongs to this committee as a whole, where obviously the majority of members are on the government side. That is why,Mr. Barlow, I wanted to make it perfectly clear to you that the Bloc Québécois is opposed to the bill and that there should be no doubt on that point. However, we will certainly work hard on it and study it carefully.
What matters to me is to determine whether the First Nations were consulted. You tell me that the view in New Brunswick is that correspondence is not adequate, and I have carefully noted that. Unless there is a dramatic change, we will continue to oppose the bill. The committee, even with a Liberal majority, will obviously do its work. That must also be understood. That is democracy and Parliament as currently constituted. I just wanted to make that point, Mr. Chairman.
[English]
The Chairman: D'accord.
Are there any other questions or comments?
Chief Barlow, did you wish to make some closing remarks?
Chief Barlow: Yes. In terms of the statement that you made that the bill now belongs to the committee or the House of Commons, you have to understand that the recommendations that you will be putting forth are very important. We want it clearly stated that of the 12 bands I represent, we are not in favour of this proposed legislation. There is not one band that is in favour of the proposed legislation.
There's another group here called the Mawiw group that represents three first nations. I don't know. Perhaps they're in favour of it, but I will let them speak to it.
In regard to the invitation for the Minister of Indian Affairs to visit the first nations of the people who have presented, I myself would not care to have the Minister of Indian Affairs visit my first nation community.
We are the Richibuctos. We are the Micmac Nation. We have been a strong and proud nation for many years. We have fought along with the French and we have fought along with the British. We have fought along with the American people when they wanted to secede from the British Crown. It was George Washington who sent his representatives to us to ask us to fight on his side, to get away from the British Crown.
.0955
I would also reiterate that when Canada came into the possession of the British, the one and only time the Micmac people fought on the side of the British was when Canada was delivered to the British Crown. We have never been defeated in war. We have never accepted dominance by any foreign powers. We are treaty people, and the only treaties we have signed with anyone are peace and friendship treaties. We are still first nations. We are still a nation within our own territories. Thank you.
The Chairman: Those are very good comments and they are on record. We thank you very much for your presentation.
From the Atlantic Policy Congress, we now invite John Paul, executive director, or anyone who may be with him.
Chief Barlow: Do I have any time remaining here?
The Chairman: If you need more time, yes, come on back.
Chief Barlow: We'd like to have one elder speak with some of my time remaining here.
The Chairman: That's agreeable. It's irregular, but agreeable. We're very flexible.
Chief Barlow: It's all right. He will do a presentation for someone else. Thank you,Mr. Chairman. I'll let you go on with your agenda.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Chief Barlow.
From the Atlantic Policy Congress, do we have before us John Paul?
Mr. John Paul (Executive Director, Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs): Yes. We have presenting today the two co-chairs of our congress. The congress is working for the35 chiefs of eastern Canada, which comprises the Micmac and Mawiw's nations in this part of the country. Today we're basically going to have our two co-chairs do a presentation.
One of the co-chairs is Chief Lawrence Paul, who is a Micmac from Nova Scotia. Our other co-chair is Chief Floyd Bernard from the Madawaska First Nation. Perhaps I'll just get Chief Paul to start with these presentations.
The Chairman: Before you do that, Chief Lawrence Paul, Chief Floyd Bernard, and Executive Director John Paul, we have 40 minutes together, maximum. These belong to you. You probably heard my statements before. This is your time; use it whichever way you prefer. We would appreciate some time for questions afterwards. Having said that, please proceed.
Mr. J. Paul: Thank you.
Chief Lawrence A. Paul (Millbrook First Nation): Thank you. I'm from the Millbrook First Nation, Truro, Nova Scotia. I wish you all a good morning.
Before we start, Mr. Chairman, I would like to be able to identify the members of the standing committee so I know exactly who I'm giving my brief to. I know we have here Raymond Bonin.
The Chairman: I will name everyone who is here for you. I should have done that at every presentation. I'll try to remember that in the future. My name is Ray Bonin and I'm the chair of the committee. We have with us today from the Bloc Québécois, Claude Bachand, and from the Liberal or government side, Dr. Bernard Patry and Mr. Elijah Harper.
Please proceed.
Chief L. Paul: I wish to extend greetings from myself and my co-chair, Chief Floyd Bernard. We are here today to express our views on the implications of Bill C-79, tabled by Minister Ron Irwin on December 12, 1996.
Our chiefs' organization reflects the collective unified voice of our Micmac and Maliseet nations. Our people want to say we reject Mr. Irwin's approach and his legislation. I will forward to you copies of various resolutions adopted by our chiefs expressing our concern since this initiative started.
.1000
Our chiefs have requested hearings in first nations, and instead we are in a hospital here in Moncton. How can you expect to understand and realize the impact of that legislation if you do not see our communities? Although our communities are not here, you will hear their voices.
The legislation has reached the stage with you as the committee, and we hope you will listen and seriously consider what we say. Should you decide not to, you will have turned your back on our people and your responsibility as legislators. As legislators, we feel you must protect our interests, not those of your party. The Canadian people elect all of you, so it is my belief they can and will get rid of you if you do not reflect our wishes.
We feel this legislation does not reflect the wishes of the Canadian people. It does reflect the colonial Indian agent view of Minister Irwin. He has stated these changes are being done for us. You and he should prove to us: why are such changes in our best interests? We feel these changes proposed are not. If you are not able to listen to Canadians nor the words of our people, who will you listen to? The rule of law.
That brings me to a second concern. We feel Bill C-79 is an indiscriminate use of constitutional and fiduciary power pursuant to subsection 91(24) of the Constitution Act of 1867. It appears you and your government have made a selective choice: authority, which relates to the Liberal government's red book and partnership. Do partners use their power unilaterally to negatively affect the other? Such practice would not be tolerated between the non-Indians, but is acceptable between the federal government and the Micmac and Maliseet people.
What is the government doing to address the real needs and priorities of our communities, like housing, water, sewer, alcohol and drug problems, mental health, employment, economic development, and child poverty?
A third area of concern is the so-called interim nature of Bill C-79. Our long history shows us any and all measures introduced by the federal government become written in stone and interim means a lifetime. One clear example was Bill C-31. Our chiefs were told by then Indian Affairs Minister Crombie that the legislation would leave no first nation worse off.
In fact, our population has grown and in some cases doubled. This has directly increased demands for services and resources. Today there is a multimillion dollar shortfall that exists between needs and what was provided to meet the needs of these new members.
A fourth area of concern is how DIAND's spending priorities will be adjusted to reward penalized first nations who opt for the legislation. In DIAND's main estimates it is stated:
- New legislation, if proclaimed into law, will legislate new policies, procedures, training, and
communication plans. The availability of funding and resources will determine the speed and
extent to which priority initiatives can be completed; ... It will be necessary, therefore, to rank
priorities, find cost-effective solutions and allocate funds efficiently and carefully.
.1005
We are now at a crossroads, and each of you as legislators must and can influence the direction of the future road. Born out of conflict, colonialism and assimilation are a second road to a new relationship as set out in the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. The report has outlined in detail the financial, economic, and social costs of maintaining the status quo.
This can be a starting point for a new nation-to-nation relationship. Act in true partnership, and start now. Begin realistic discussions with first nations. On the RCAP final report and recommendations, begin to do what the red book says: complete the constitutional agenda; create opportunities to address first nations poverty on a scale that matches first nations needs.
I'm a co-chair of the Atlantic Policy Congress of first nations, which consists of 35 chiefs in Atlantic Canada. This includes P.E.I., Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, and the Gaspé peninsula in Quebec.
We listened very intently to Minister Irwin's words, where he says: I want to get out of this paternalistic concept that we're now in. I say, fine; 87% of first nations across Canada reject Bill C-79. But Mr. Irwin says no, they're rejecting my amendments to the Indian Act. Those pesky Indians don't really know what they're doing.
He says he doesn't want to have a paternalistic approach any more, but then he must be choking on his words a little bit, because now he's using a paternalistic approach again, by forcing these Indian Act amendments on us, even though we reject them - 87% of us. That doesn't make sense to me. You know, my name's Joe, it's not Slow. If he wants to tell the general Canadian public that he wants to get out of this paternalistic approach on one hand, and on the other hand he's enforcing a paternalistic approach by ramming down our throats these amendments to the Indian Act -
The House of Commons has a moral responsibility to the first people of Canada. As you said, now it's in the House of Commons' hands. Therefore, we expect you people as elected members, and the Canadian public in general, including the natives, to do the proper thing by our native people.
It's been too long that we've been under the rule of bureaucrats from Ottawa. We voice our objections and we recommend solutions. They are totally ignored, because the paternalistic approach is still in effect.
To drive home my words a little better, it's like the great white father and the arrogant savage. You know, that mentality is still in place.
The House of Commons - I think now is the time to take into consideration that we as native people are human beings. We are not to be shoved around like property on a baggage car. We object to things that are being done to us that are not in our best interests. We have to take the view that the federal government of Canada considers us, the native people, not as human beings, but just baggage, property, to have done to us whatever they feel like doing.
.1010
We have a glaring example in Bill C-31. I was involved in those negotiations in 1984. We told them what we wanted. They rejected what we said. Then they put Bill C-31 through. It caused a lot of hardship. It caused a lot of animosity: brother against brother, sister against sister, father against son, mother against daughter. That's what the bill accomplished.
The Minister of Indian Affairs at that time was the Hon. Crombie. He said the first nations who accepted the reinstated people back would not have any financial hardship. That was the biggest lie of the 20th century, because they reneged on their promises. We accepted our people back, but the dollars didn't come along with them, and neither did the land base.
Another glaring example was when they came to us and said they would give us a small subsidy, but that if we borrowed money from Central Mortgage and Housing, we'd have all kinds of houses available to us - we used to call them 56(1) units - and we'd never have a housing backlog. So we did it. And what happened? Indian Affairs very effectively got out of their trust and fiduciary responsibility for housing for native people in Canada.
Now the responsibility falls to Canada Mortgage and Housing, and we still have a housing backlog, but first nations across Canada are in debt up to their necks on account of these mortgages. That didn't work very well for us.
The Solicitor General of Canada, a few years back, said he wanted the province to contribute 48% of police on native reserves and he would put in 52%. We had to agree. And what happened? The provincial government has all the say now about the police force on a first nation reserve, or else they won't put in their 48%. So if they say, ``Do it this way; this is the way we want it'', then that's the way it has to be done.
By the way, when they said something about going to Central Mortgage and Housing, they said it was optional. We could either stay under Indian Affairs housing policy or go to a new one. They said it was optional. A few years later it was compulsory. I have a great fear about these new Indian Act amendments. They say it's optional now, but in a few short years it will be compulsory.
There are parts of the Indian Act that should be amended. One of them is the one that leads to the assimilation of our people. A native man or woman can marry a non-Indian, and if this non-Indian has 10 children, that man or lady can adopt those children and they will become status Indians under the Indian Act.
The assimilation process in that particular part of the Indian Act is what should be amended to stop the annihilation process of the special status of our people. They totally ignore that, but they're changing us into a corporation so we can sue and be sued. We can be sued and sue now. It's already been defined that that can happen to us, so why do you have to have an amendment to the Indian Act in order to do that?
I could go on and on, Mr. Chairman, but at this point in time I'm going to stop and give members of your committee a chance to ask me some questions on what I just said.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Chief Paul. I'd like to ask if Chief Bernard will be making a presentation or if this completes the presentation from your group.
.1015
Chief L. Paul: I think Chief Floyd Bernard would like to make his presentation now,Mr. Chairman, and after that maybe the members of your committee can ask myself or Chief Bernard some questions.
The Chairman: Agreed, providing there is time left over to do it, because we have 40 minutes total.
Now I invite Chief Floyd Bernard to make a presentation.
Chief Floyd Bernard (Madawaska Maliseet First Nation): Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, committee members. My name is Chief Floyd Bernard and I'm from the Madawaska Maliseet First Nation in New Brunswick. I'd like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to present our views on Bill C-79. My co-chair, Lawrence, and I wish to express personally why we reject Minister Irwin's approach and proposal.
We hope each of you, as legislators, will not be fooled by either the minister or the government. You will be held accountable to your constituents and to the people of Canada. To tinker with the Indian Act at this time does nothing to affect the lives of the people of our communities. Those people in our communities on welfare with no jobs and no hope will not be helped by these changes to the Indian Act. If you want to do something, work with us in partnership, not as enemies.
Under the legislation, the policy to continue the doctrine of assimilation is clear. Some examples are: making first nations communities corporations, the entrenchment of Canadian real estate law, the entrenchment of Canadian personal property tax, and the entrenchment of Canadian matrimonial and family law. In other words, if our first nations would become nice little municipal-type community units, all would be happy. We in this part of the country are the Micmac/Maliseet nations, not municipal units. We are a government and we wish to pursue and rebuild our nations and institutions in a way consistent with our cultures and our values.
As a chief of a small first nation, I see the amendments as a direct measure to increase the need for legal services and administrative costs. Has DIAND told you how much this Bill C-79 will cost this year and in the future? From my perspective, if no money is set aside, it will be added to my first nation and to my costs within a fixed budget. This will be yet another example of federal devolution policy with no money.
The current Indian Act makes Canada look bad and Minister Irwin wants to change it. The process used to date clearly demonstrates that Canada has no intention of changing and wants to maintain the course under the old Indian Act.
Recently Canada received a report from the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. Why don't you as legislators do something to follow the report and intent of the recommendations? Turn the corner towards establishment of a real government-to-government relationship. Our nations, the Micmac and Maliseet, are willing to work with you, but Minister Irwin has not allowed this to happen. Instead he and the federal cabinet have decided what is best for the Indians. I implore you not to do the same thing. Please stop and do not accept this bill. Do not go forward with it.
To be here today is an insult to me. It's an insult that you say there's no money out there for me to go to Ottawa and make my presentation to you or for you to come here so I can make my argument to you in person. We have to rely on a stupid television set and a camera here. The importance of this issue for us is to talk to somebody who can talk back in person, not a stupid television set.
.1020
I wonder, is there anything we can say here that will convince you, the committee? Does it really matter what we say, or is this just a crock? Across Canada 85% of us have already said no. What the hell are we doing here saying no again? Doesn't how we feel mean anything to anyone on your committee?
Thank you.
The Chairman: Thank you for your presentation.
I can tell you that everything you say is recorded, and whatever pertains to Bill C-79 will be debated with, I'm sure, much heat, because this is a multi-party committee. Don't think opposition members as well as government members don't have questions, and hard questions, about the bill.
At this time we are listening to you. When we debate the bill, which will be next Thursday at9 a.m., that's when all the testimony comes on the table and that's when this committee does most of its work. So I think it's premature to assume that your comments are falling on deaf ears.
Having said that, I will open it up to questions from members.
[Translation]
Mr. Bachand from the Bloc Québécois.
Mr. Claude Bachand: I would like to congratulate you, Mr. Paul and Mr. Bernard, for your presentation. Mr. Paul, your voice was rather hoarse this morning, that did not take anything away from the heart and courage reflected in your presentation.
As the spokesperson for aboriginal affairs, I would first like to indicate to you that the Bloc Québécois is opposed to the bill before us. As spokesperson for the Bloc Québécois in this area, I have to travel a good deal in Canada but unfortunately have not yet had the opportunity to visit New Brunswick.
I am preparing to write a letter to both of you so as to be able to meet the New Brunswick people in the near future. It is an area I have not yet visited, and I am impressed by your presentation this morning. I am looking forward to be able to discuss these issues with you face to face and to look at living conditions in the Atlantic provinces. A visit to the Matapédia Valley and Edmunston, located just on the other side, is the only place I have been in the Atlantic provinces. I will look to you to perhaps try to help me in organizing such a visit. We could perhaps discuss that again.
I'd like you to explain to us what you understand by consultation. The minister claims that the exchange of a few letters is sufficient consultation. In your view, and in keeping with aboriginal tradition, is such consultation adequate?
It seems to me that consultation means rather meeting face to face and discussing issues. How would you have liked that consultation to be conducted? As we know, this bill affects the living conditions of the First Nations, and I would like to know more about these consultations. In your view, is correspondence adequate or would you like it to go further?
Since Chief Paul raised the issue of paternalism, I would like to put my next question to him. I argued that there was no difference between the current minister and the minister responsible for Indian Affairs in 1876. Both ministers, as well as their predecessors and successors, always considered that they knew what was good for you and imposed it on you, whether you liked it or not. This is somewhat the image that I have of the current minister. I would like you to come back to the issue of paternalism and explain it. Do you agree with me that there is no difference between the minister in 1876 and his counterpart in 1997?
I would now like to discuss the issues involved in the supporting or opposing the bill. Chief Paul said that favours would certainly be given to those people agreeing to support it and small penalties imposed on those against it. Can you explain to us, with a few examples, what you understand by penalties or favours? I have other questions I would like to ask you later, if time permits.
[English]
The Chairman: Before you answer the question, I will make the point that whatever opinions you have about the minister...you've been asked. Because this committee is an open committee we will allow you to respond. But I will say, whatever comments you make about how you feel about the minister has nothing to do with Bill C-79 and will not be considered when we debate the bill clause by clause.
.1025
We are an open committee, so I'm letting everything go. It's your 40 minutes.
Chief L. Paul: In response to your question, I would say we already understand what the chairman said about the standing committee. The bill has been tabled. Now it is in the hands of the House of Commons. So why should we waste our time belittling Ron Irwin at this time? It's not in his hands any more; he tabled it. Now it's in the hands of the House of Commons.
As far as consultations are concerned, I concur with my colleague here, Chief Floyd Bernard. We're sitting here by way of videoconference talking to you people.
You know, in terms of the amendments to the Indian Act we don't deserve the right, maybe, to go to Ottawa and sit and talk to you people, as my colleague said, face to face. It seems to me we're expressing our views this morning by way of an artificial tie, and it doesn't seem right to me.
Consultations with native people: I feel this little fiasco going on here today is just propaganda and public relations for my fellow Canadians so that the federal government in Canada can say they have consulted the native people, and listened to them.
We know the Parti Québécois is on this committee. We also know the Reform Party is on this committee. The Tories are not on there. They only have two, so they probably couldn't at this period in time have anybody on the committee, right? But we know that Reform and the Parti Québécois are outnumbered by the members of the Liberal Party at this time. Whether you voice an opinion, whether you object or whether you vote against anything is immaterial, because due to the status quo the government members are going to follow party policy. If the party policy at this time is to amend the Indian Act, then the Indian Act shall be amended over the objections of the native people of Canada.
Do you want to elaborate on that, Floyd?
Chief Bernard: I would like to make a plea here to the standing committee. You say that next Thursday, or some Thursday - I don't know what you said - you're going to be starting clause-by-clause. I ask all committee members to just take it clause by clause, read it, and then put it in the trash barrel. Do us a favour - please.
Thank you.
The Chairman: Unfortunately, the bill will have to go back to the House. It belongs to the House of Commons. It will not go into the trash. One way or another, amended or not - depending on committee members - it is going back to the House of Commons.
Any other questions or comments?
Then I invite you to make your closing remarks.
Chief L. Paul: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and your committee for giving us the opportunity to express our views. I hope the standing committee will break with party policy and be a committee with compassion, and look at our views as native people. If we thought these amendments to the Indian Act were in our best interests, we'd concur with Minister Irwin tabling these amendments in the House of Commons. But we have legal people too. We have resource people. We can interpret those amendments, and they are not in our best interests.
.1030
So now we have a standing committee.... I addressed a standing committee one time in Ottawa. That was when it was under Prime Minister Trudeau. It was a Liberal Party at that time, and we were addressing another issue. Nevertheless, I guess we're at a time now when our fellow Canadians and other countries, especially the United States of America, can look upon the Canadian government and see whether they are going to act in the best interests of the aboriginal people of Canada.
I must remind the standing committee that there was a poll a couple of weeks ago, and 40% of the Canadian people want the federal and provincial governments of Canada to improve things for aboriginal people - that was the biggest vote, 40%. I want the standing committee to remember that. We have 40% of the Canadian people wanting the federal government and the provincial governments of the various provinces to improve conditions for the aboriginal people of Canada.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Thank you, Chief, and I can say with confidence that every single member of this committee is included in that 40%. We are often asked to reflect the desires of the people we represent. My riding has 80,000 people. There are less than 500 aboriginals in it, and I spend most of my time working in Ottawa, trying to improve the situation for first nations aboriginal peoples. I'm not unique on this committee. Every member of this committee has accepted to be here for that purpose, and I can say that with full confidence, for every member, on all sides.
I thank you very much for your presentation. It was a very good presentation.
I ask whether there is in the room a person named Alex Dedam, from the Mawiw Council.
We have double-booked to allow you to make a presentation. If you are there, we have 30 minutes for your presentation.
Mr. J. Paul: Mr. Chairman, before you go on, do we at the Policy Congress have any more time, or did it all elapse at 40 minutes?
The Chairman: It has elapsed. It's concluded. There were no more questions from members, so I offered closing remarks. We're moving on now to the Mawiw Council.
If you can hear me, anyone wishing to make any written presentation, if you have anything to add, you can send it to us. Please assure yourselves that we receive it on or before next Wednesday.
I welcome before us from the Mawiw Council, Alex Dedam.
Mr. Dedam, we need to know what position you hold on this council.
Mr. Anthony Francis (Representative, Mawiw Council of Chiefs): My name is not Alex Dedam. He couldn't come today.
The Chairman: What is your name?
Mr. Francis: My name is Anthony Francis. I was approached last night by the chief of the Big Cove reserve to represent Mawiw at this session today.
The Chairman: Okay. We will allow 30 minutes for this presentation.
Mr. Francis: I would like to say that I support the statements made by two previous speakers, and I would also like to support the positions taken by the Assembly of First Nations.
I am worried about the implications of Bill C-79, and I don't like the idea of using it as an option. I think this is the most dangerous way of presenting a bill, as an option. It doesn't really and truly represent the grassroots people. You can have a council that comprises seven, eight, ten, or twelve people who could decide to infringe upon the rights of the rest of the community.
.1035
I think Bill C-79 opens a door towards assimilation in some of the land sections. I think these land questions - alienation of Indian lands, subjecting Indian land to taxation, subjecting Indian lands to mortgages, alienating it for a long period of time - are infringing upon the rights of people in regard to their land. I think it's unconstitutional to do that, because the government has obligations under the Constitution to protect lands and to have fiduciary obligations - trust obligations - towards Indian people.
If the government makes legislation that could alienate Indian lands for a long period of time - let's say CMHC mortgages...if you attach lands to the mortgages this infringes upon the rights of people to the use of that land. It alienates it from the use of the people. This is why I'm against Bill C-79.
I think the best approach could have been started by the Indian grassroots people themselves. If they didn't like certain sections of the present act then I think instead of wide-scope changes they should have complained about one or two sections - make changes there - instead of a wide range replacement of our present sections; for example, the definition of an Indian reserve in the Indian Act where it says this land is vested under Her Majesty. It belongs to Her Majesty for the use and benefit of Indians. I've often looked at that. I think these lands belong to Indians held in trust by Her Majesty. So that particular section was never dealt with.
There are other sections. For example, section 4 of the Indian Act gives the Governor in Council too much authority. The Indian people themselves should have dealt with these sections individually. Section 29, for example, protects Indian lands.
I think the government is facing a big problem regarding the CMHC arrangements they have now with almost all the reserves in Canada. Some of these policies were optional to start with. I remember this because I was president of the Union of New Brunswick Indians when this policy was introduced. I was also a chairman of the National Indian Brotherhood. We strongly rejected the idea of tying up lands for these mortgages. We said, how do you apply, for example, if people can't pay for their mortgage? How do you collect money for them? If you happen to eject them from the house and tell them they can no longer stay there because they're not paying their mortgage, where do you place them? Where do you want to put these people on the reserve?
There should be a guarantee that we'll always have this special place, which is now called a reserve, for ourselves so that we can use our lands as a place where we can exercise our rights, our traditions, and our culture. We should always have that, but some of these policies are going to open the door towards assimilation. Once the legal status of lands changes, it opens that door, because then these lands will be subject to somebody else taking over. And who is going to take over, Indians or non-Indians? Where are you going to displace some of these people you're going to be moving out of these houses?
.1040
There's a whole slew of houses under the Central Mortgage agreements that you really cannot collect any money from, because the land is not attached to them. The land is held in common for the use of Indian people.
The legal rights of Indians - for example, the rights they have under guaranteed education; the rights they have in regard to their land and properties, which are not subject to seizure; and all those other rights that come under sections 88, 89, and 90.... I don't think we have any right to decide we'll take these rights away from the grassroots people.
I would go along with the Indian organizations that are represented here and reject the whole idea of implementing Bill C-79 on the Indian Act.
That is all I'm going to say here today.
The Chairman: Thank you very much for your presentation. We have maybe 10 minutes for questions.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand: Good morning, Mr. Francis. I very much appreciated your presentation. I know that you were very involved in the fight against the 1969 White Paper, one of the main objectives of which was assimilation. As you have pointed out, with Bill C-79 such assimilation could be achieved through land because there are provisions of the bill subjecting land to mortgages. You seem to fear such assimilation through land.
Do you think that Bill C-79 is somewhat similar to the White Paper? Has the federal government always sought assimilation during the time that you have been working in the area of aboriginal affairs and defending your people? Is Bill C-79 consistent with that tradition of the federal government, seeking to assimilate aboriginals into Canadian society?
I refer specifically to the 1969 White Paper and to the battle in which I believe you were heavily involved. Could you give us a short description and tell us whether my statements are correct? Would you say that the purpose of the 1969 White Paper, Bill C-79 and all the other measures taken over the past 100 years, was to assimilate the aboriginal peoples?
[English]
Mr. Francis: Yes, I strongly believe that of each part of the ongoing policy of the government.
Since 1969 I have watched all policies that have been established through the years. One of them I mentioned; the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is one of them. Since 1984 there hasn't been an increase in the housing subsidy moneys by Indian Affairs. The reason for that is to turn over the responsibility for housing for Indians to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
In the 1969 white paper there was a definite statement that once Indian Affairs is done away with, all programs will be turned over to different departments and to the provinces. Great strides have been made by the government to do that. But the most important part is the status of lands for Indians under the Indian Act, common ownership.
.1045
When white men first came to this country they recognized that Indian people did not own any specific piece of land. They had rights to occupy different portions of land. When the Indian Act was made, the Indians continued with this concept of land. When the 1969 white paper was established, it recommended that there be land surveyed within the reserves to give individuals certain lots, to number them. I would imagine that eventually these lands could be under fee simple title, and once they came under fee simple title they would be subject to seizure, mortgage, and so on, and they would be subject to alienation. This is what I meant by Bill C-79.
Another document that has been optional through the years is the AFA, the alternative funding arrangement by Indian Affairs. There's also a definition about the land becoming fee simple and about taxation. I think the chief from Edmundston, Chief Bernard, explained that pretty well. I think there have been strides made to implement the 1969 white paper even though it was totally rejected by our people here in New Brunswick and across Canada.
The Chairman: Thank you. We'll ask you to be brief because we have a few minutes left. The reason I'm moving more quickly is that your request came after others and we accommodated. I'm sorry I can't give you the full 40 minutes, but we did want to hear from you.
Mr. Murphy, please.
Mr. John Murphy (Annapolis Valley - Hants, Lib.): Thank you, Chief Francis. I'm interested in your dialogue about lands. I'm wondering how you would implement a policy that would protect your lands. What do you think needs to be done? You reject the issue of it being held in trust and so on. How best do you think that should be handled? Could you help me with understanding that a bit, please?
Mr. Francis: I mentioned section 29 of the present-day Indian Act. There are sections in that act that state that under legal process, Indian lands cannot be mortgaged or seized or alienated. That's one guarantee we have.
If you were to subject that particular piece of land to mortgage, if you were going to go to Central Mortgage and borrow money to help build a house on that piece of land, then you're alienating it. That really doesn't work, because we ourselves, the Indians of New Brunswick, recommended that the land should not be used at all for mortgages, that it should always be there. Under the Canadian Constitution, which Mr. Paul mentioned, subsection 91(24) gives the government the fiduciary trust and obligation to protect those lands and to protect first nations.
I don't know if in fact we need any other special policies. I think that's enough. I think we should abide by that and stop applying central mortgage programs on Indian reserves, because they're not like a municipality.
The Chairman: Thank you. That point has been made and recorded. We thank you very much for your presentation. This concludes this part of the hearings.
We now invite Regional Vice-Chief Rick Simon from the Nova Scotia and Newfoundland Secretariat of the Assembly of First Nations.
As the regional vice-chief is approaching, I'd like to state that we have amongst us a group of young Canadians who are in Ottawa to see how government and committee work function. So the people you see approaching the table are young Canadians, some from first nations, who are visiting Ottawa.
.1050
If you have no objection, we'll invite them to the table to observe, to give them a real feeling of what happens in committee. They will be able to see you on the monitor. These are achievers. These are quality people that we have in Canada.
So I apologize, Vice-Chief Simon, and I thank you for your cooperation. I'm sure that, with us, you are very pleased to have these young Canadians here.
Vice-Chief Simon, thank you very much for being here with us. We have 40 minutes together. These 40 minutes belong to you. You may use them in any way you wish. Your testimony in reference to Bill C-79 will be debated when we go into clause-by-clause to return the bill to the House. I would appreciate it if you would allow some time, though, for members to ask questions of you.
Please proceed at your leisure.
Vice-Chief Rick Simon (Regional Vice-Chief, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland Assembly of First Nations): Good morning to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development regarding Bill C-79, the Indian Act Optional Modification Act.
Before I go into the discussion here, I'm quite pleased to see the young Canadians there. I was quite disturbed the other day to read in the paper that a young Micmac lady from Nova Scotia, I believe, tried to enter the House of Commons with an eagle feather and was rejected. If any of the young Canadians there have decided to follow that process, I hope they haven't gone through the same rigmarole.
The Chairman: If you'll permit, I will make a comment about that. It was an incident for which we apologized as a government. The Minister of Indian Affairs has apologized for that. It was a decision of one individual.
I can tell you that at our first meeting after that, Elijah Harper walked in here with his feather and he was very much welcomed with it.
So we apologize for that incident, to you and to that young lady. It was a decision by one employee of the House of Commons, and I doubt if it will ever repeat itself.
I thank you for bringing it up.
Vice-Chief Simon: Okay.
I am the Regional Vice-Chief of the Assembly of First Nations of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. My colleagues and I are here to reiterate what you probably have already heard in your previous hearings in other parts of the country, but we must repeat ourselves again and again. We do not support Bill C-79.
We have told the Minister of Indian Affairs, Mr. Ron Irwin, on every occasion we have had the opportunity to do so over the past year or so, that this bill is not supported. In Canada, 85% of the first nations have delivered the same message through resolutions and letters, yet here we are today, the Atlantic first nations, repeating ourselves once again.
We are forced to create a paper trail so that when the Government of Canada is finished imposing its will on the first nations of Canada, for whatever good it's worth we will be able to stand proud and say we rejected this, and the proper documents are in place to prove it.
You, the standing committee, will be a part of this paper trail. Only time will tell whether you have gone down in history as having done what is right or what is wrong. You have the opportunity to toe the line with party policy or listen to the first nations of Canada, who will be dramatically affected in the negative by Bill C-79.
.1055
I have put the focus on the committee's role and have tried to appeal to the human side of you as elected members of Parliament for a simple reason. We are under no illusions about the role this body has in this process. The government has already made it clear that it intends to use its majority on this committee to press forward with Bill C-79 despite the fact that it has been rejected by the overwhelming majority of first nations.
To make matters worse, the committee has two aboriginal members, Mr. Jack Anawak andMr. Elijah Harper, who, I might add, both mysteriously came down with ailments when National Chief Ovide Mercredi appeared last week. I have serious doubts that these two aboriginal members will do what is right when it comes time to defeat the bill. Party policy and toeing the line will prevail.
The grandeur of standing proud and saying no during Meech Lake will be lost forever to the paper trail of reality towards party policy. I hope sincerely -
The Chairman: Excuse me, but I will intercede here. The purpose of these public hearings is not to attack individual members; it's to give the committee some information to either return the bill as is or amend it.
So I will not accept that any members of this committee is attacked. Please give us your comments in general terms and we'll keep personalities out of it.
Thank you very much.
Vice-Chief Simon: This was not an attack on Mr. Harper; it was just putting this whole comment in focus.
We understand the government has used a special procedure in the House to accelerate the legislative process and to put this bill before your committee prior to second reading. The minister's promise of extensive public hearings has been transformed into one meagre week of hearings by your committee, and through teleconferencing, no less.
This comes as no surprise. In fact, it runs almost parallel to what he has tried to convince this committee about, as well as the Canadian public, regarding the style of consultation he has used. Consultation by correspondence: that's how the Minister of Indian Affairs has put forward his approach to this bill. This is without any pretence of meeting the most basic definition of what constitutes consultation.
When only a few first nations replied to the minister's letter soliciting changes to the Indian Act, he refused to back down, and followed up with more letters, hoping that somehow the first nations misunderstood his intentions.
There was no misunderstanding on our part. We were clear that there are bigger issues that will pave the road to our self-determination, first and foremost being a pre-Confederation treaty process here in the Atlantic.
We did not put a priority on a bill that is in the best interests of the Government of Canada. We are talking about self-determination, self-governance, not self-annihilation. Then again, these are our priorities, not those of the Government of Canada, whose priority through this bill is to erode the special relationship they have with the first nations of Canada.
This has all the appearances of a government that will stop at nothing to impose its will on our people, even if it means denying us our fundamental democratic right to speak to an issue that stands to dramatically affect our legal relationship with the federal Crown.
We have been consistent with this message in both regional and national forums. In fact, when the Minister of Indian Affairs attended a special assembly on the Indian Act amendments in Winnipeg last September, hosted by the Assembly of First Nations, chief after chief across this country asked him to back off. He said no. It was obvious the minister had his own agenda on this bill. If he hadn't, it would be sitting on a shelf right now.
The result of that meeting was a resolution of rejection by the first nation chiefs of Canada, which, I understand, was part of the package National Chief Mercredi presented to you last week. I urge you, as a committee, to review that resolution, because it was the collective will of the chiefs of Canada, and it was passed after full and democratic debate.
The minister's process for full and democratic debate was through the back door. He solicited recommended changes to the act from the chiefs through letters. Some responded with requests. Most didn't respond at all. But once it was put into motion, there was nothing in place to monitor or guide the internal department process. As in the past, the bureaucrats took control. The list of proposed amendments began to grow and grow as the bureaucrats themselves began to make additions of their own. In this respect, the minister's assertion that all of these amendments have come from the first nations themselves is false.
.1100
I can go on and on about the flow of process, but I'm sure the first nations of Canada have reiterated what I am saying, so I'll move on to content.
The ultimate objective of Bill C-79 is assimilation, not the empowerment of our people. This can be seen by the very fact that this bill purports to delegate to first nations powers that are internal to our communities and integral to our culture in areas such as leadership selection, estates, and lands.
Even this government's so-called inherent rights policy framework, narrow as it is, concedes that these are subject matters that are already recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, in its final report, concluded that these are core areas of first nation jurisdiction, which are protected by section 35, and can be exercised freely without interference from other governments. Why then does the minister propose to delegate these powers and to seek first nations' consent to the delegation of these powers?
It is because the minister wants first nations' consent to his control over first nations - consent that was not obtained in 1876, when the first consolidated Indian Act was imposed on our nations.
That's the effect of opting in; that you are consenting to the legislation. Once you opt in, that's it, sink or swim. There is no opting-out clause. The threshold of opting in is a simple band council majority. No community referendum is required. What happens if the community members by mass majority regret being opted into the legislation, but they are already committed by a simple band council majority? The chief in council may be replaced by democratic means, but the community members are still stuck with the legislation and have no way of getting out.
Clause 8 of the bill would give the band the capacity of a natural person, and it introduces the concept of a corporate personality. This is an alien concept to our people and a direct attack on our customs, practices, and traditions.
Minister Irwin's rationale for this particular clause is that it would allow bands to enter into contracts, sue and be sued. Yet there is already case law that has established that bands can enter into contracts, sue and be sued. What is the purpose of this clause? Chances are that in the future, Department of Justice lawyers can argue that a first nation that adopted the bill no longer possesses the inherent right of self-government since it consented by taking on a corporate personality, which is not a practice, custom, or tradition that was integral to its culture prior to European contact.
The minister has asserted that this bill will increase the powers of first nations and decrease his powers. He has responded to the fact that many clauses of the proposed bill actually increase his powers by saying this is only to make things more efficient and less cumbersome. However, the practical effect of taking existing responsibilities away from the federal cabinet and transferring them to the minister is to increase the powers of his bureaucrats and senior officials.
As the old saying goes in first nation communities, we're here from Indian Affairs and we're here to help you. Help us do what, I ask. Consolidating the control of bureaucrats over our lives is to perpetrate the abuse that we have been subjected to over past centuries. It does nothing to resolve the matter of ministerial accountability to our nations or put an end to the arbitrary action of bureaucrats who have so far been invulnerable to any form of scrutiny or transparency in their dealings with our people.
If the minister is determined to pass legislation, why not pass legislation to articulate the nature and scope of the federal Crown's fiduciary duties to first nations? Why not use legislation to confirm the federal Crown's commitment to a pre-Confederation treaty implementation process here in the Atlantic for Micmac and Maliseet nations. Why not use legislation to provide a firm statutory base for fiscal relations between first nations and Canada?
.1105
The minister won't entertain these ideas because they are first-nation driven, and the Government of Canada is committed to staying in the driver's seat that will lead us down the road to assimilation. We need an agreed-upon process, agenda, and priorities for the true cooperative work so that legislation initiatives are connected with first nations' priorities and goals, not just Canada's.
As I said earlier, here is the paper trail outlining some of our real goals and aspirations. History, and quite possibly the Canadian electorate, will judge whether this committee has done what the first nations of Canada want, not what you are bound to by party policy. Thank you.
The Chairman: Thank you very much for an excellent presentation that was very relevant to the bill we have before us.
Now we will proceed to questions. I can say to you that we are now left with Mr. Claude Bachand, from the Bloc Québécois, and myself, because there's a vote on. Your presentation has been recorded.
I'll open the floor to Mr. Bachand for questions.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand: Mr. Simon, thank you for your presentation. It is somewhat similar to that of the previous witness, Mr. Francis, as regards assimilation. Mr. Francis was very involved in the 1969 White Paper on assimilation, and he seems to be suggesting that government policies since that time have been going to some small degree in the same direction.
I believe that the government has found an innovative way of trying to play down the issue by saying that the bill was only optional, that those people wishing to remain under the old legislation could do so whereas those wishing to come under the new Act are free to do so.
In your view, is this simply a trick being used by the government to create two types of aboriginal people or two types of legislation, a new Act and an old one? A number of witnesses have told us that those people agreeing to opt in the new legislation would probably be given certain favours, whereas those people not agreeing could be penalized.
Do you agree with the statements concerning ongoing policies of assimilation, as well as the possibility that favours would be granted to those opting for the new legislation and penalties imposed on those people refusing to do so?
[English]
Vice-Chief Simon: Yes, I do. Thank you for your question, Mr. Bachand. In fact, if you weren't there, probably there would be no questions to any of us today.
Moving on to your point, the 1969 white paper, the Nielsen report in 1984-85, or whatever the Liberal Government of Canada is proposing today...it doesn't matter what stripes they are, whether they're Liberal or Tory, the process is the same. Each governing party to date, in relation to the first nations of Canada, has tried to get out of its responsibility towards us, and they've tried to do it in a whole range of areas.
If you look at what's going on currently, the minister comes forward and says our inherent right is recognized but now it's a policy. Every Liberal government initiative from here on in, in relation to the first nations of Canada, will be under this inherent right policy. So any initiatives we want to take in the future become tied to the inherent right policy, which we've rejected, just as we rejected Bill C-79.
.1110
Initiatives from where we want to go as first nations peoples are tied to the acceptance of policies in relation to funding activities that we want to go forward with. We understand from the analysis we have done through a series of program reviews, not only from the regions but from the national organization, the Assembly of First Nations, that the dollars haven't been identified except in relation to who is becoming a part of the inherent right policy and who is going to opt into this new Indian Act.
It is creating two classes of people, and it has done that before. Bill C-31 did the same thing.
To date, regardless of what party banner the government carries, the gist is the same, and that is to erode the relationship you currently have with the first nations of Canada.
The Chairman: Vice-Chief Simon, if there is only Mr. Bachand and myself here, it's an agreement we have between the two parties. We're neutralizing each other's vote. That's why we're allowed to continue. If I left to vote, Mr. Bachand should do the same thing, and if he should be there, I should be there also. It's an agreement to accommodate the public hearing so that we can hear as many as possible. That's why there are two of us here.
If there was another member of the opposition, we could have another member of the government side, but Mr. Bachand, our loyal soldier, is there all the time.
I think he has another question for you.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand: As you can see, Mr. Simon, the Bloc Québécois is very accommodating in discussing aboriginal issues. Also, and I don't know if you saw that on television, but I am proud to have Ms Labrador sitting close to me. The House apologized yesterday to Ms Labrador, who has her feather proudly alongside her here. I am very proud to be sitting next to her and I wanted to make that clear.
Mr. Simon, I have another question regarding consultation. The aboriginal tradition has always been for people or nations to face one another when seeking an agreement. I'm referring here to the First Nations as nations. Historically, they have always sat at a table opposite the people with whom they're discussing, and they consider that they've never been defeated in any war. Traditionally, they have always been in favour of the British Crown or the French Crown. There were always certain practices followed in discussions. Today, the minister claims to have held consultations because he sent letters to the First Nations.
Do you consider that this way of consulting is a violation of aboriginal traditions? Aren't they going through the back door to adopt a significant bill which will have major repercussions on the socioeconomic conditions of aboriginal peoples? Is it not taking a rather off hand approach to argue that because 70 of the 600 First Nations answered by letter the government can therefore feel justified in adopting a bill which they have decided is good for the people concerned and which will in fact affect all aboriginal people? Is this not really a violation of the traditional approach to discussing issues affecting Canada's First Nations?
[English]
Vice-Chief Simon: Thank you, Mr. Bachand. In relation to the minister and his style of consultation, I have to look at it in the sense that I guess this is his plan B in relation to how he's going to deal with this. He did deal directly with the first nations across this country, as I mentioned in my brief. He met face to face with the chiefs of Canada in Winnipeg last September, and he was told over and over again that the bill is not supported and that the process is flawed. He had an opportunity then to right the wrong.
You've heard this morning from the two co-chairs of the Atlantic Policy Congress. In our regional forums we sat down as 35 chiefs here in the Atlantic with the minister and we discussed this whole process. At that time we rejected it outright again. With the exception of him trying to hold some of these hearings in the community so it can go beyond the elected leadership, who he doesn't seem to listen to, maybe it would have been a good opportunity for him to hear directly from the community people. In relation to this whole issue of consultation, he has his own agenda.
.1115
It comes back to my point about party policy. It's been clear from the outset in the rigmarole that's gone on in relation to trying to even put these hearings together. We had to travel hundreds of miles to come here to make presentations to go on record as saying we've told you over and over; what part of no don't you understand? We reject Bill C-79.
The Chairman: We thank you for having come all that distance to be with us. Because we have spent much time talking about the minister's consultation, I want to make it clear, for the record, that this bill no longer belongs to the minister. Once tabled, it belongs to the House of Commons. The committee will not be assessing the efficiency of consultation by the department or the minister. The committee will address the bill. The issue is Bill C-79, not personalities or how certain people did their work before it was tabled.
You have made it clear that you are against it, and that and everything you have said is being recorded.
[Translation]
Mr. Bachand, do you wish to continue?
Mr. Claude Bachand: Since you're adding your two cents worth, I will also add mine. It is obvious that in accordance with parliamentary procedure, the minister introduces a bill which is given first and then second reading, and is subsequently sent to committee. Some people have mentioned the fact that the majority of committee members were from the government side. That's obvious, since it was democratically decided that there would be more Liberal than Bloc Québécois members in the Canadian Parliament.
I consider that consultation is important. You cannot deal with a bill on aboriginal affairs as you would with a bill on mines or natural resources. We're talking here about the living conditions of people. I think it would be important for a committee considering natural resources to ask how many trees are to be cut, and a committee looking at mines to ask how deep they are going to be dug. When you are talking about a bill affecting the First Nations, it is important to know whether they were consulted since they are the people who will have to live with the bill subsequently. That is why I am focusing particularly on the way consultations were held. I consider that there is a moral issue involved here, although I realize that next week we will be studying the bill from a legal view point, in clause-by-clause consideration, and that consultation will not be discussed then. However, I believe that while witnesses are appearing it is important to try to determine whether they were consulted since their living conditions will be affected as the result of the passage of this legislation. They're the people who will have to live with the every day consequences of this measure. That is why I am focusing on consultation as such. I just want to make that point clear.
[English]
The Chairman: Vice-Chief Simon, do you have any closing remarks for the committee, for the record?
Vice-Chief Simon: I do have a couple of closing remarks, but I also have a question for the committee.
The Chairman: No, the questions are being asked from this end, not by the witnesses. If you have any closing remarks you can take all the time you need because we are not anywhere close to40 minutes. You have the time you need for your closing remarks. We don't entertain questions from witnesses.
Vice-Chief Simon: You seem to be controlling the process here. I find it a bit degrading that I've travelled a couple of hundred miles and I can't ask a single question. The question is simple: have any first nations supported this bill to date?
The Chairman: Yes.
This is a public hearing; this is not a committee meeting. A public hearing is parallel to a hearing in a court of law. Witnesses don't go to a court of law asking questions. If I allow you to ask questions, which I would very much like to - I should allow every witness to ask questions. This is our third day and it would be unfair to the others to now start allowing questions from witnesses.
.1120
That's normal procedure. It's very common in public hearings. I didn't make up this formula.
I do invite your closing remarks at this time.
Vice-Chief Simon: I'd like to focus on one area, and that's the fact that you made it clear this bill is not Mr. Irwin's bill; it now belongs to this committee. My only recommendation to this committee is to trash the bill, because it's not to the benefit of any of the first nations of the Atlantic, by any means, and as far as any first nations across the country are concerned, I sincerely doubt it.
With that, thank you very much.
The Chairman: Thank you. I'll make a small correction. It does not belong to this committee. It belongs to the House of Commons. The House of Commons has asked this committee to peruse the bill, to consult with Canadians, and to go back to the House with amendments or recommendations. So it doesn't change the intent of your comment, but it belongs to the House of Commons.
Mr. Bachand has another point to make. I will allow it.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand: I would like to point out that normally witnesses do not ask questions. However, if they have any questions they can always subsequently telephone the committee clerk. If Mr. Simon wants to know which First Nations have or have not objected to date, the clerk will no doubt be able to provide him with that information. I would also offer my support to Mr. Simon and tell him he can call me at any time. I will be pleased to forward that information to him.
[English]
The Chairman: You may contact Mr. Bachand, the clerk of the committee, or your own MP. There are all kinds of ways of finding out what has been placed on record. That information is certainly available to you.
Having said that, I thank you very much for coming the distance and for making an excellent presentation. This concludes this part of the hearings.
Thank you.
Now we invite from the Confederacy of Mainland Micmacs, Mr. Donald M. Julien, executive director.
I can say at this point that we are running 20 minutes late, which is good, due to the fact that we started half an hour early and we were able to hear a group in addition to the schedule we had. So we're doing very well.
Mr. Julien, welcome. My name is Ray Bonin. I'm the chair of the committee. I'm sitting here with Claude Bachand from the Bloc Québécois. Our other committee members are voting at the present time. Everything you say will be recorded.
We are honoured to have with us about 20 or 21 young Canadians. They are selected Canadians who are here in Ottawa to see how government functions, and now they're getting a first-hand look at committee work. We have invited them to sit at the table with us, which is probably a first, but they are very special, so we wanted to do something special for them.
We have 40 minutes together, maximum. These minutes belong to you. Having said that, I would hope that you would allow some time for questions after. The purpose of this consultation is to address Bill C-79, an act to permit certain modifications in the application of the Indian Act to bands that desire them.
Having said that, I invite you to initiate your presentation at your leisure.
Before you proceed, I see that you have a colleague with you. Could we, for the record, have the name and the position of your colleague?
Mr. Donald J. Julien (Executive Director, Confederacy of Mainland Micmacs): My colleague is Eric Zscheile, legal adviser for the Confederacy of Mainland Micmacs. He's going to be doing a little bit of a presentation once my presentation is finished, and he'll be answering some of the questions along with myself.
.1125
Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee, and members of the Young Canada group, and a special hello to Mr. Murphy.
The Confederacy of Mainland Micmacs was founded on December 5, 1986, by six first nations of mainland Nova Scotia. We took advantage of tribal council funding through the Department of Indian Affairs in the mid-1980s. We took on the responsibility of providing advisory services to our six member first nations on economic development, financial advisory service, foreign government service, technical service, and housing. We are also involved in several other program areas, such as first nations forestry, health advisory, and so on. I can probably go on and on about our organization.
First of all, we do not support Bill C-79. Time and time again, from April 4, 1985, to December 13, 1996, we have sent letters from our chiefs rejecting the proposed Indian Act amendments.
I want to give you a little bit of history. When we're talking about assimilation, it all started in 1830 and 1850. Upper and Lower Canada had special legislation called Enfranchisement of Indian People. History repeats itself over and over again. In 1886, there were two sets of Indian Acts, one for the Indians who wanted to become Indians living on the reserve and one for gradual enfranchisement of Indian people. So we had two Indian Acts way, way back. They didn't work.
History once again repeated itself in 1947-48, when the Department of Indian Affairs had a standing committee to review the expressed changes toward the 1951 Indian Act. The expressed views of the first nations across Canada were ignored to a great extent.
Finally, the Government of Canada recognized native people in Canada as Canadian citizens in changing the Immigration Act in 1956. So in 1956 we finally became Canadian citizens.
Once again, in 1966-1968, special groups for consultation were formed across Canada. Provincial advisory groups, regional advisory groups, and national advisory groups were formed to indicate the changes to the Indian Act and the Department of Indian Affairs' programs. Unfortunately, the recommendation was once again ignored and our Minister of Indian Affairs, Jean Chrétien, introduced a 1969 white paper policy to assimilate once and for all the Indians of Canada and to do away with special status.
I'm sorry if I'm going a little bit fast, but I'm a little nervous.
The Liberal government introduced the red book, with a number of new terms that are similar to the wording of the old 1969 white paper policy.
I just want to reflect into the 1990s. The Minister of Indian Affairs outlined some of his concerns about the Indian Act at the Alberta chiefs summit in Calgary on March 16, 1995. The minister stated his objections to proposing any fundamental changes to the federal government's fiduciary relationship or treaty obligations with first nations. He suggested several topics of contention in the western provinces, such as by-laws, land allotments, operations of farms, timber and gravel removal, land claims and treaty entitlements, and elections.
We agree that the Indian Act is in many ways ambiguous, inconsistent, and inefficient, even though it gives the minister authority and discretionary powers over local matters. This places the fiduciary responsibility solely on the federal government, as well as the responsibility to uphold these trust responsibilities towards first nations under subsection 91(24) of the old British North America Act and now the Constitution Act of 1982.
.1130
The minister stated that he knows there are ``contentious issues'' and would like to hear ``views and visions from first nations''. He further stated that he can't afford a long and costly amendment process, as ``we don't have a lot of time and we certainly don't have additional funds for this initiative''.
He goes on to say:
- To change the act, there must be a broad measure of support among first nations. I will only
proceed with specific amendments that have strong support from first nations.
- I want to hear from you directly. I'll look forward to receiving your letters and concerns on
matters by the end of May of 1995. I will report to first nations shortly thereafter on the specific
advice I have received from you. Together we will make an assessment then of what we can and
should do in order to amend the most archaic and offensive sections of the Indian Act, or if we
should leave the Indian Act alone for now. Your suggestions and advice are essential to the
success of this endeavour. I will listen to you carefully and follow your advice.
- To date, on the responses of April 4, 1995, and letters of July 1, 1995, the department received
61 responses representing 214 first nations. Of that number, 77% of the 214 were supportive
and 7% were opposed.
- What about the idea of all 600 first nations' opinions, and not just one-third of the first nations
responding - namely, 214 first nations?
- Others requested that they be given more time to respond. The interim list of main amendments
that were being considered for review have three sources for proposed amendments.
- First of all, there were those included in your recent responses, those made by first nations in the
course of day-to-day business by DIAND, and those being proposed by the department to
reduce time required to respond to first nations. The amendments are proposed mainly to
sections of the Indian Act that deal with reserve lands, natural resources, estates, Indian
moneys, elections, by-laws and education.
The minister further suggested that by December of 1995 a further report on the reaction of the first nations across Canada would be made. He would then present a report to his cabinet colleagues seeking authority to draft amendments to the Indian Act if this effort obtained strong support from first nations.
In the minister's letter of June 4, 1996, to chiefs and first nation organizations, he suggested that:
- Additions to the list and support for many of the proposed amendments were received, but
generally there was little opposition to the amendment package.
- Once the final target is complete, the next step would be for me to proceed to cabinet to seek
authority to begin drafting the amendments to the Indian Act if cabinet approves common
language versions of the proposed legislation before it goes to Parliament.
- Department officials are currently working with AFN to develop a joint process of
consideration of the proposed amendments to the Indian Act. To ensure that they reflect the
draft positions of first nations, the federal government will continue to respect the fiduciary
relationship with first nations, and any proposed changes must not alter the Crown's trust
obligation.
Then, in September 1996, a special assembly of chiefs was held in Winnipeg, Manitoba, at which time the minister had an opportunity to personally review his proposed amendments with the chiefs and seek their views. In Winnipeg, the chiefs once again reiterated their rejections of the amendments themselves and the process the minister was using to proceed.
.1135
Once again, however, the Minister of Indian Affairs insisted that he would continue, notwithstanding the unequivocal position of the chiefs. Since October of 1996 the band council resolutions and the first nations organizations from across the country have individually stated their rejection of a ``package'' and the process.
More than 85% of the first nations of Canada have formally rejected the proposed amendments and process through band council resolutions or letters. Notwithstanding the clear message sent from the first nations to Minister Irwin, he has continued his intention to go to cabinet for final approval and to introduce draft legislation into the House of Commons by December 13, 1996.
On December 12, 1996, the Minister of Indian Affairs introduced Bill C-79, the Indian Act Optional Modification Act, in the House of Commons. This is a new, separate piece of legislation that will apply to those first nations that choose to opt in. The current Indian Act will continue to apply to first nations who choose not to opt in to the proposed legislation.
When we look into the future as Micmac people and leaders, we are not certain whether our opting out of Bill C-79 will mean anything.
As you may or may not be aware, first nations and organizations will be expected to enter into a new type of funding arrangement, called FTAs. What we're questioning is whether one of the proposals will be that you have to opt in to Bill C-79 if you are going to receive funding.
The other area of concern is with the education agreement signed just this year by 9 of our13 first nations in Nova Scotia. Once the legislation is enacted in September, will one of the clauses be that those under the MK agreement, Mi'kmaw Kina'masuti, have to opt in to Bill C-79?
We have other situations and concerns. We are concerned that when first nations or organizations want to expand their progress or responsibilities under forms of self-government initiatives, will they have to opt in to Bill C-79? I guess our problem is that we don't trust that fiduciary, since it does what it wants without any meaningful consultation or support from first nations.
Thank you.
The Chairman: Thank you for an excellent presentation.
John Murphy - and I think you know John well - expresses his regret that he's not here at this time. He's in the House of Commons voting. It's not by choice; he had to be there. There's a possibility he may be back before you leave, but he wishes to say hello to you and express his regret.
We'll open it up for questions.
Monsieur Bachand.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand: Thank you, Mr. Julien, for your presentation. One of the previous witnesses suggested that Bill C-79 could create two classes of people: one class governed by the current Act and another by the bill before us. He also referred to Bill C-31, which at the time also created two classes of people. Do you think that there is an ulterior motive here, that is that the government has been trying for a long time to fragment the various aboriginal peoples so as to break their solidarity and isolate them according to class? That is what I seem to understand when I am told that there are two classes of people established by Bills C-31 and C-79, and that in the future there may perhaps be two classes of people for other things.
My second question concerns assimilation. Some of your predecessors mentioned the 1969 White Paper and it is their opinion that the goal of government policies since that time has been assimilation. They made no exception for Bill C-79 and stated that it went along the same path of assimilation. Do you share that opinion?
Finally, you have said that as regards consultation, the minister boasts that he undertook a consultation by sending correspondence out and getting answers back.
.1140
What do you think of the fact the minister is going ahead with his bill based on correspondence he supposedly received? Do you know that those letters are not public? We presently have in hand only some 70 of those letters and the censorship is so heavy that we don't know whom they are from. Would you go so far as to say that taking into account the consultation surrounding the bill, this bill is almost based on false representation? How can one introduce a bill stating that consultations were held, that 70 people have answered and were ready to go ahead? Am I going too far in presuming that you basically think that the minister is presently acting under false representations?
[English]
Mr. Julien: That's a lot of questions to ask all at once, but I'll try to answer them individually.
Bill C-79 is going to create two classes of people, unfortunately: those people who are under the present Indian Act and those who are going to be under the new, amended Indian Act. If history proves itself, if you go back to 1830 and 1850, when the colonial governments were trying to enfranchise native people into good little white people, it made our people two classes of people.
Once again, when the Indian Act was introduced in 1876, you still had the Department of Indian Affairs at that time wanting to class two different types of people: those Indians under the Indian Act and those people who should be enfranchised and lose their Indian status.
The 1876 Indian Act took away native women's rights when they married. When they married a non-native man it caused two classes of people at that time.
In 1886 there were two Indian Acts: one for those people who lived on the reserve and one for those people who wanted to enfranchise. That wasn't fair.
When we're looking at the 1969 white paper...we'll call it Bill C-31. Bill C-31 should have been looked at even more thoroughly than what it was, because we still have another class of people. Under the Indian Act and the changes to Bill C-31 you had families fighting one another because some of the family members didn't become registered Indians because of some faulty mechanism under Bill C-31. They should have gone a little bit further.
I probably will be crucified by non-native women who married Indian men, but they should have gone a little bit further in Bill C-31. Those men who married non-native women...those women should have lost their status, similar to non-native men who gain their status under Bill C-31.
Once again you have different classes of people. This creates problems on a first nations level because you have people who believe in the old ways of the Micmac people that everybody works together and lives together. We have the Department of Indian Affairs or the Government of Canada infringing on our way of thinking and way of life with Bill C-31, and other amendments to the Indian Act in the past.
Is there a fragmentation involved? Yes, there is. You have family members who are complaining to one another because of status, because of living on and off the reserve.
Because of Bill C-31 we now have another dilemma. The Department of Indian Affairs and the federal government seem to think there's a different class of on- and off-reserve Indians.
Regardless, in Nova Scotia, when I say mi'kma'ki - that's all of Nova Scotia - this is our reserve. There's no such thing as on and off. As our aboriginal rights we claim all of the province of Nova Scotia. Until the government compensates us for the lost use of our land in Nova Scotia we feel the province of Nova Scotia, or mi'kma'ki, is our territory. There's no such thing as off and on reserve.
When we're talking about assimilation, the white paper policy, native people have provincial, regional, and national advisory groups. Mr. Anthony Francis probably would have been involved in one of these advisory groups. They had a lot of good recommendations on how to change the Indian Act and the programs of the Department of Indian Affairs. What happened? They were totally ignored.
.1145
What was introduced? I don't know if it was the Liberal government. It might have been the Liberal government, totally. Jean Chrétien, who is now our illustrious Prime Minister, introduced the white paper policy to assimilate the Indian people once and for all, to get away from special status, to do away with Indian Acts, and to make us into good little Canadian citizens.
Lastly, on the consultation views of the minister, I'm going to hand it over to my colleague, Eric, so he can give you his three cents' worth.
Mr. Eric Zscheile (Legal Adviser, Confederacy of Mainland Micmacs): Thank you very much. I think we've heard a lot about consultation during the proceedings this morning and the importance, or lack of importance, of consultation in this process.
First of all, it's important to realize that for the Micmac Nation, understanding your position in the House of Commons and the ownership of the bill and so forth, the Crown is the Crown. It's the Micmac Nation and the Crown of Canada, whether that be a parliamentary committee, a minister of Indian affairs, or a bureaucrat from the Department of Indian Affairs. When we are dealing with these individuals they are representing the Crown, and that is the relationship. When we listen to people speak, that's how we listen to them speak.
Regarding consultation, it's certainly the view of the Micmac people that there is a legal component to consultation. It's not moral, it's not ethical, it's not political. The Supreme Court of Canada has been very clear in certain case law that there is a duty upon the Crown, and the fiduciary, the federal government, to consult with first nations peoples when their fundamental rights are being affected. That is why the consultation component is important.
Regarding the views of the minister, I feel very reluctant to try to impugn the minister personally or discuss whether he's representing views falsely. All I would say is when the first nations make themselves clear about their position regarding a fundamental aspect of their lives, when that consultation process takes place, it's incumbent upon the government to ensure, regardless of who has ownership of the bill, regardless of who has ownership of the idea, that the federal government is living up to its obligations to the first nations people. It's the view of the Micmac Nation that ownership of that duty belongs to any representative of the Crown, be it a member of Parliament, a bureaucrat, and so on.
That is why, when we ask this committee in these hearings to take into consideration these issues of consultation, we feel it is still within the power of this committee to view that, to see whether this bill has been properly put forward as a legitimate bill affecting first nations.
The Chairman: As chair of the committee, the problem I have with consultation is that this is our third day of hearings and in my estimation, which could vary with different opinions of members, 75% of the testimony does not relate to the bill that we have been entrusted with. We are considering Bill C-79.
When we go into deliberation and any member makes a comment that does not relate to the bill, as chair I will have to rule them out of order. I'm not doing that through the consultation. The reason the consultation issue comes up often is because most of our time hearing witnesses on this committee is spent listening to issues that don't pertain to Bill C-79. That needs to be put on the record.
We've spent an awful lot of time talking about Bill C-31, which is not before us today, which was not an optional bill. Bill C-79 is optional, and I don't think that is repeated often enough.
I have a question for you. Do the people who present not feel that the elected band council members are capable of making the right decision on behalf of the people they represent in either exercising this option or not? This would be very helpful to me as chair and when we go into deliberation, because this is an optional bill. In a democracy, usually the elected people are the people we trust to make decisions for us. Do you feel the band councils are either not capable or informed enough to make the right decision for their respective communities? Could you answer that for me?
.1150
Mr. Zscheile: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
For me that brings up really two issues. The first is the issue of the optional nature of the bill. The second is the issue of the band councils. As other witnesses have put forward, and as Mr. Julien has indicated in his presentation, we have great difficulty with this notion of options.
We are often faced on a day-to-day basis with issues and policies that are optional to first nations. Unfortunately, as you've heard in previous testimony, we have grave concerns, based on historical fact - what happened with CMHC and what has happened with funding agreements - that for first nations to progress in any specific area the option of going into this new bill will be the only option.
One example is the Mi'kmaw Kina'masuti, the education authority, which has just fit into it. Two of the particular amendments within this optional package pertain to education, but to get access to those two particular amendments, you must opt into all 70-some changes to the Indian Act regarding land, education. Why is it that to get access to particular provisions these individual bands have to opt into an entire package?
On the band councils, I think there is certainly full support for band councils on reserves and full support for band councils to make decisions. However, I think in any democracy...if I were to say the House of Commons is now going to pass a bill that they could not opt out of in the future, and should any other government be voted into power without the option of opting out of this particular legislative regime, that would cause great difficulties. In fact, I think that alienates the democratic process.
Why can't opting into the Indian Act be a political issue for chief and council election? Why can't a chief and council election be run on whether we should stay in the new Indian Act or leave the new Indian Act? What we have before us is that you're in and there's nothing you can do about it, so hope the future generations enjoy it.
The Chairman: That is the point I'm leading to. Why don't you make recommendations to this committee to modify the bill to accommodate those issues? This is the kind of material I'm looking for, help for the committee so that when we have our debates we can say the presenters made a strong point that it shouldn't just be a band council resolution; it should be another formula.
We're not getting that assistance. I'm not trying to gauge the assistance to be for or against the bill, but maybe to make it better. You are the experts. That's why we invite you. That's the help we're seeking.
Mr. Zscheile: We wanted to make it better, as did the people before me, Chief Lawrence Paul and Chief Floyd Bernard. They told me to take the bill and put it in a trash can. That's exactly my recommendation.
I know it probably can't be done that way, but that's our recommendation: that you should stick to the original Indian Act until there is a proper process in place where we can probably change the whole damn thing instead of doing it piecemeal and dividing first nations across Canada.
My recommendation for the House of Commons is to get rid of it.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand: I have a comment in concluding. I know that you're from the Micmac Nation and that a lot of people from the Micmac Nation are present in this room. I was introduced to the Micmac Nation, which I hold an high esteem, by Mrs. Brenda Miller from Listuguj. I've metMrs. Miller several times and I believe she makes a very good representative for the Micmac Nation. I wanted to tell you of the great admiration I have for your Nation and emphasize that Mrs. Miller is an excellent representative for the Micmac Nation in Quebec. Thank you for your presentation.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you very much. Do you have closing remarks?
Mr. Zscheile: No, I don't think we have any closing remarks, other than what the other chiefs said. We are not in support of the Indian Act amendments.
Thank you very much.
The Chairman: It has been duly recorded and I thank you very much for coming the distance and for helping us in our future deliberations.
This concludes this part of the public hearings.
.1155
Before moving on to the next presentation, I'd like to thank our excellent young Canadians, our specially selected young Canadians who are in Ottawa this week to see how Parliament works.
As you can see, this is the part of governing where a bill is assigned from the House of Commons to a committee, and our job is to consult with Canadians.
After the consultation is completed, we then have a meeting with only the members of the committee, from all parties, and that's when we go at each other, in a certain sense. We have very good cooperation on this committee from all parties. We don't agree all the time - we don't agree most of the time. We have very good members on all sides.
Eventually we send the bill back, with the approbation of either all members or some of the members. The bill is sent back to the House of Commons either with amendments, or as it was sent to us.
That is the work we do in committee. When you don't see us on TV when you tune in to the government channel, most of the time we're in rooms like this doing our job.
At the present time we have two members, because we have a system of pairing members to neutralize votes, and this is something we both have to agree to before it is done, and that's what happened today.
Thank you very much. I hope you enjoy your week. Maybe Monsieur Bachand has a few words for you.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand: I'll address you in French, Canada's other official language. I am also happy to see you here. There are people from everywhere. I even see there's a young lady from Westmount, in Quebec. Every day life on Parliament Hill means that one participates in votes and committee work. You're lucky to be here witnessing the work of this committee.
The native case is really engrossing. Especially when you learn that Canada has 630 communities that are all different from one another. There are many nations; some say there are as many as 80. That's very interesting to us. Even if we sometimes tend to think that the native question is litigious, we know that the members of this committee all have one wish which is to try to improve natives' socioeconomic conditions. Now that you have witnessed some of our work, we're counting on you for your participation.
I'd also like to congratulate Ms Labrador for the courage she showed yesterday and the day before. She believed she might perhaps be refused entry, but she still insisted on making her views known. We took stock yesterday and that's the kind of thing that helps the native question to progress. Canadians don't understand why someone would be refused access simply because she has a simple feather in her hand. Her stand finally led to a debate on the matter and to an understanding of the importance of native culture not only in Canada, but also in Quebec.
You natives are the first comers and we owe you much respect. I think that henceforth we'll see to it that you can stress all questions and matters which have a symbolic value in your eyes so that you can show us how great is your culture.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak to these young students. I will join you in wishing them the best during the rest of their stay in Ottawa this week.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Bachand.
[English]
Thank you. If you found the chairs comfortable, keep up the hard work you're doing and maybe some day you'll be sitting in those chairs as members of Parliament. I wish that upon you. It's a good job.
Voices: Thank you very much. Merci.
The Chairman: As I apologize to our guests for not shaking their hands and bidding them good bye, I will continue with the public hearings.
I now invite, from the Assembly of First Nations of New Brunswick and P.E.I., Vice-Chief Leonard Tomah.
Vice-Chief Simon: I'd like to apologize for my colleague. He's not here this morning, although he did send a brief message, and I'll reiterate it on his behalf. The message was short and clear.
The Chairman: That's acceptable. Please share the message with us.
.1200
Vice-Chief Simon: The message was quite clear: kill the bill.
The Chairman: Okay. It's been recorded. Thank you very much.
Vice-Chief Simon: Thank you for your time. I hope you have good luck in the Yukon or Northwest Territories, wherever you're going next.
The Chairman: Thanks to all of you in Moncton. We will now suspend public hearings until 12:30 p.m., when we will resume in Yellowknife.
This meeting stands adjourned to the call of the chair.