Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Aboriginal Peoples
Issue 13 - Evidence - Meeting of February 27, 2007
OTTAWA, Tuesday, February 27, 2007
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples, to which was referred Bill S-216, providing for the Crown's recognition of self-governing First Nations of Canada, met this day at 9:32 a.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Gerry St. Germain (Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Chairman: I want to introduce the members of the committee. On my right is Senator Gill, from Wellington, Quebec, and beside Senator Gill is Senator Watt from Inkerman, Quebec. On my left is Senator Lovelace Nicholas, from the province of New Brunswick and next to her is Senator Dyck from the province of Saskatchewan. Last but by no means least, is Senator Hubley from Prince Edward Island. Welcome colleagues.
Today, the committee begins its study of Bill S-216, providing for the Crown's recognition of self-governing First Nations of Canada.
Colleagues, for the benefit of the viewing audience, I think it is prudent to provide a brief sketch as to the purpose of the bill.
Bill S-216 is an enabling legislation. It is not being thrust upon First Nations people, it is merely enabling. Bill S-216 is a vehicle First Nations may choose to use. Today they only have the Indian Act. This committee has heard time and again that the Indian Act for many First Nations simply does not empower them to develop their economies and a satisfactory way of life.
The basis for Bill S-216 is for First Nations to take control of their own destiny as far as government and day-to-day operations are concerned.
Bill S-216 is designed so that First Nations will be able to opt out of the absolute control of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada and be able to govern themselves in an accountable, efficient manner for all band members. As opposed to being a top-down process, self-governance will allow all band members to participate.
Ideally, the bill allows every member of a band with a land base to participate in this process, if they so choose.
[Translation]
Our first witnesses today are representatives from the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. We welcome the National Chief, Mr. Patrick Brazeau, and the Director of Strategy Development and Public Affairs, Mr. Al Fleming.
[English]
The committee last met with the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples on June 7, 2005, when the committee was examining the predecessor of the bill we examine today.
Mr. Brazeau and Mr. Fleming, welcome to the committee. We understand you have a short prepared statement and once you have concluded I am sure the senators would like to ask you a few questions.
[Translation]
Patrick Brazeau, National Chief, Congress of Aboriginal Peoples: Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the members of the committee for giving me this opportunity to appear before you this morning to discuss Bill S-216.
[English]
Before I go to the essence of my message, I want to introduce our organization to you. The Congress of Aboriginal Peoples is one of five national Aboriginal organizations recognized by the Government of Canada.
Since 1971, we have been the voice and political defender of the needs and aspirations of off-reserve Aboriginal peoples throughout Canada.
The quest towards self-government is an issue of tremendous personal importance to me, just as I know from my own significant work around consultations on the First Nations governance at the Congress, this subject is important to First Nations citizens everywhere.
Senator St. Germain, let me begin by saying how pleased we are to see this draft piece of legislation that seeks to deal with one of the most fundamental elements of democracy: representative, transparent and accountable governance.
Since December 2003, when the former Liberal government of Mr. Martin chose to kill legislative efforts at reforming Aboriginal governance, there has been far too little public or parliamentary debate about enacting any measures to ensure that First Nations communities can enjoy the same fundamental tools of governance that the rest of Canada takes for granted. How can it be that in 2007 there are reserve communities that do not allow their off-reserve members the right to vote in band elections? How is it that the 1999 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada rendered in Corbiere v. Canada, which affirmed the rights of off-reserve members to participate in community elections, is dismissed by band councils that opt out of Indian Act provisions and revert to customary election practices over which the government has no authority?
Where is the sense of democracy that sees off-reserve members counted in the per capita funding formula that determines the extent of federal funding, yet turns a blind eye to the systematic and purposeful exclusion of off-reserve band members in having access to, let alone a say in, how funding for programs and services is allocated, or how budgets for them is administered.
Why is it, that the federal government still has the ultimate authority to determine who is and who is not a status Indian in this country? It is questions such as these that any draft legislation that originates from this place, or indeed in any other place in this Parliament, should seek to deal with.
It is because these questions persist that I again applaud the draft bill under consideration. Yet I must wonder what it will take for Parliament to act in respect of reforming on-reserve Aboriginal governance? In a perfect world, the caucuses of all parties would agree that the situation on Indian Act reserves is nothing short of dreadful and serves as blight on the reputation of Canada as a humane, caring and progressive nation.
One might hope that the House leaders would agree to move on the reform of Aboriginal governance and permit Mr. Harper's government to enter into consultation and dialogue with all First Nations peoples, both on- and off- reserve with an aim to sustainably and pragmatically end the prescriptive nightmare that is called the Indian Act.
My posture, in advocating for the retirement of the Indian Act, is not new, nor is it my own. In its final report issued over 10 years ago, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples noted that while there were over 600 Indian Act bands, there were between only 60 to 80 true historical First Nations.
It was also noted by the United Nations special rapporteur on human rights that:
. . . because the right of self-government cannot reasonably be exercised by small, separate communities, RCAP recommends that it should be exercised by groups of a certain size — groups with a claim to the term ``Nation'', that will have to reconstruct themselves as nations.
In so taking this position, it seems clear that there are indeed multiple lines of evidence to suggest that a network of 600-plus Indian Act bands does not equate to the modern manifestation of effective and accountable governance.
The Congress of Aboriginal Peoples supports these views. We believe that true self-government must be vested with the true, traditional and historic First Nations. We do not and cannot support the notion of legitimizing a system of reserve communities, as prescribed under the provisions of the Indian Act as the effective means of enacting the inherent right to self-government.
Any attempt at modernizing First Nations governance must be rooted in recognizing, embracing and accommodating the needs, aspirations and views of the people, and not of the elite few in positions of power. In a fair and democratic society such as Canada, we, as politicians cannot and must not let anything of the sort continue to happen.
Until the purposeful exclusion and ongoing discrimination of off-reserve status Indians by certain chiefs and band counsel ends, until the arbitrary application by the Indian Affairs department of labels and classes of Aboriginal status created by the machine that continues to breathe life into the Indian Act is ended, until Canada's non-status Indian population is freed from ``Canada's legacy of stereotyping and prejudice,'' resulting in a ``chronic pattern of being ignored by both the federal and provincial governments,'' as a Supreme Court of Canada termed it, we, as Aboriginal leaders and parliamentarians together, have a moral duty and a sacred obligation to this country's most disadvantaged to work to protect the interests of First Nations citizens.
As you are aware, I have appeared before this committee before as a witness offering comment on previous Senate bills in respect of First Nations governance. You will perhaps recall that at my last appearance, I spoke of CAP's own pursuit of an Aboriginal people's act, which we considered to be a model for the concept of nation recognition, a step we view as fundamental to the reform of Aboriginal governance.
We did so in the spirit of championing change, for we know that it is the role of the Canada's Parliament, to develop, draft and enact the laws of this great nation.
We continue to undertake robust communications efforts aimed at raising the bar on solutions to the issues confounding First Nations people everywhere in this country both on and away from Indian Act reserves.
Our posture, in defence of the people and critical of certain chiefs, has resulted in provocative exchanges with some of our brothers and sisters on reserves. No matter how controversial our position may be viewed, you can be certain that our belief in the will of the grassroots people and the value of true democracy in First Nations reserve communities will not waiver.
I have stated that the Indian Act is the single biggest contributing factor to Aboriginal poverty in this country, and to offer any sense of hope to the fastest growing segment of the Canadian population, we must replace the act with a model that is more democratic, accountable and sustainable.
As I close my remarks this morning, I ask myself and all of you present, what must the circumstances be to bring about the will for change? When is the right time for all of us, and I mean all of us, to affect real change for real people in real need? Must unemployment, poverty and despair increase? Must rates of infant mortality increase and life expectancy continue to drop? Must rates of suicide become worse? Must further opportunities for prosperity continue to evaporate for First Nations peoples, despite a thriving national economy?
My view of the Aboriginal landscape is one that is faced outward and forward, not inward and backward. As the youngest national Aboriginal leader in Canada, I remain filled with hope for Aboriginal youth, with respect for Aboriginal elders and with belief in the will and spirit of Aboriginal women and their families.
The efforts that have guided the creation of Bill S-216 are to be commended. I ask those of you in this place to continue to safeguard the needs and promote the aspirations of First Nations peoples everywhere in this great and prosperous country. I ask that you urge your colleagues in your respective caucuses to put aside partisanship. We need to bring Aboriginal governance out of the 19th century where it has rested so comfortably for the last 130 years. We need to ensure that First Nations communities become beacons of accountability and transparency rather than shameful reminders of how Canada has let its First Peoples down.
I am ready, willing and able to do whatever I can to make a difference. I am prepared to address your caucuses, to speak to your leaders and to undertake whatever means will bring about real progress. I need your help, I ask for your help, and I ask for your time and your dedication to help build a better future for the peoples on whose behalf I am here today.
[Translation]
Senator Gill: Mr. Brazeau, thank you for your presentation. In addition to raising many points, you also asked a few questions which, no doubt, also included the answer at times.
With respect to Aboriginal peoples in general, we want the federal government to adopt measures that will enable us to pass legislation in addition to the Indian Act. At the same time, some Aboriginal peoples would like to continue living under the protection of this act.
I have many questions but I will begin by asking two or three. Before presenting claims to the government, should the exercise not first begin by a discussion amongst the country's First Nations? Because often the claims submitted to the government are further to the study of bills authorizing small groups. In your presentation, you stated that self- government should be given to the real First Nations. I would imagine that it is transferred as a block, not to each of the reserves.
We are confusing the issue when we talk about First Nations, by thinking that it is based on each of the reserves. At the outset, I think that there should be some well- established rules that have been discussed previously amongst the First Nations.
Mr. Brazeau: We have given a great deal of thought to this issue and we are looking for a solution that will ensure that the First Nations take it upon themselves to do the required work that will lead to something that will provide more hope.
We must not forget that the reserves have been living under the terms of the Indian Act for more than 130 years. In my opinion, many chiefs across the country are taking advantage of this situation. The Indian Act enables them to create an elite amongst the First Nations. It is the chiefs who control the budgets and determine how the money is to be managed on the reserves. We know that there is a great deal of abuse.
This is not the practice everywhere in Canada, but we know that many chiefs take advantage of the situation. They prefer the status quo because this is what enables them to receive guaranteed funding from the federal government. They know that they will keep their job and control the people in certain situations.
As a national organization, we worked with the Liberal Party that was in power at the time. When the bill on First Nations governance was completed, you know as well as I do that band chiefs boycotted the process because they did not want there to be greater accountability on the reserves.
The issue of accountability is important, but unfortunately many chiefs did not want to open the books on the administration of public monies.
Senator Gill: I was a chief in my community for 10 years and I was also chief of an Attikamek-Montagnais Nation. I did not feel as though I was part of an elite in the community. I worked for no salary, et cetera. With all due respect, Mr. Brazeau, I have the impression that some of the language that you are using is language that comes from the government to say that the chiefs are managing poorly. We must begin by really analyzing the situation. There may be some communities that are poorly managed, as is the case in some non-Indian communities. But I do not think that we should continue using this type of language. We cannot generalize, that is impossible.
The Indian Act, with respect to reserves, is not a statute that Indians wanted, it was imposed on them. And after more than a hundred years, people become indoctrinated and find it difficult to operate outside of the Indian Act. Although the Indian Act does have some significant drawbacks — the evidence is in the statistics, which do not paint a very pretty picture — the act does protect, to a certain point, culture, the reserve, even though this is a phenomenon that many people criticize. The fact remains that the act protected culture to some extent for a certain period of time.
Now I do know that groups both on and off reserve would like to try and have more or less the same status. At the beginning of your presentation, you said ``Fine, who is a status Indian?'' This is question that I have been asked in my region and I receive letters criticizing me for raising the issue. I think that this is fundamental and you asked this question at the beginning of your presentation. In your groups, outside of the status First Nations, do you think that it is possible to establish rules? Who wants to become a status Indian and who accepts this condition? It is a matter of citizenship.
Do you think, since there are problems, that it is possible to establish common rules of the game, which are acceptable and accepted by everyone?
Mr. Brazeau: I appreciate some of the points that you have raised. Initially, I must point out that the language we use is not that of the government. I will explain what I mean.
We have examples throughout Canada of status Indians living off reserve. These status Aboriginals are included in the formula adopted by the Department of Indian Affairs for determining the funding of the reserve. But as far as access to programs and services provided by their band council, for instance, in many cases, status Indians who live off- reserve do not have access to them. This is a question of accountability because they are included in the funding formula.
The language we use is the language we hear from Aboriginal peoples and status Indians throughout Canada, who do not have access to certain programs and services, simply because of their place of residence.
Second, the Indian Act protects a territory called a reserve. But we must not forget that these territories belong to the federal government, they do not belong to the Aboriginal peoples. These territories were set aside for the benefit and use of the Aboriginal peoples who live there, but these are still so-called federal territories.
As for the idea that the Indian Act protects culture, I think individuals protect their culture. I have lived off reserve for most of my life and I believe that it is my choice, as an individual, to preserve my culture, to decide whether to practise it or not. In my opinion, it is not the Indian Act that protects culture.
The issue of citizenship is a very important matter. We have accepted for more than 130 years having the federal government decide who has status as an Indian and who does not. It is simple, because it is a matter of money for the federal government. We know that our constituents include more than 400,000 non-status Indians in Canada.
I think the time has come to give serious consideration to abolishing the Indian Act, to extend a hand to our brothers and sisters living on the reserves, so that we can have this dialogue on citizenship. This authority should belong to the Aboriginal peoples themselves and no government should have the right to dictate who is an Indian and who is not in our country. We have many examples of this across the world, but in Canada, it is still the federal government who dictates who is and who is not an Indian, and that is a violation of human rights.
Senator Gill: One final question. You raised a point regarding resident and non-resident Indians. We need to check one thing; you said that status Indians who live off reserve do not have access to services. This is not the case in my community. People have to reside on the reserve in order to be entitled to a house. If they are off-reserve, there is a waiting period. I am not so sure that, as far as services provided in the communities are concerned, that those living off-reserve are included for budget allocation purposes. It is absolutely essential that we check this point.
As far as registering as a status Indian is concerned, you know that the people from the Metis association and others still do not agree with what you are saying, when you state that there was a desire to talk to status Indians and have a registration system. That is what I was saying earlier, we have to establish a consensus amongst the Aboriginal peoples, between the status and non-status Indians.
[English]
Senator Watt: To continue on the subject of membership, in your opening remarks you mentioned that we should be able to come up with a unified system to identify who we are, as Aboriginal people, whether off-reserve, on-reserve, registered or non-registered. All kinds of classifications have been established over time.
Did I understand you correctly that you recommend the establishment of a new act? Is that what you are saying? Can you elaborate on that?
Mr. Brazeau: With respect to the act that we spoke about, what we term an Aboriginal people's act, it is similar to the draft legislation that we are here to discuss today. The only difference is that the proposed Aboriginal people's act would allow all Aboriginal peoples to make a claim for nationhood. It would include the Inuit and the Metis peoples across this country as well, and prove that they are and were indeed a nation, so that they can be recognized as a nation in this country.
Because it affects the First Nation citizens of this country, we also mentioned there are over 600 Indian Act reserves. What many chiefs and peoples have now coined as First Nations are not the true, historical First Nations. I am an Algonquin from the Algonquin Nation. I am also a band member from the Kitigan Zibi reserve. My nationhood is Algonquin. Mi'kmaq people are a nation. The Cree peoples are a nation. There seems to be a perception that individual Indian Act reserves are First Nations, which they are not. The reserves are portions and segments of a larger nation. In a lot of cases, we are pushing for these small communities to amalgamate and form their true, historical First Nation as it was prior to the imposition of the Indian Act.
We have worked on basic, guiding principles to look into an Aboriginal peoples' act, but it would be put in place and developed so that Metis people across this country can claim some sort of Metis nationhood.
Senator Watt: Recognition of the First Nations, Inuit and Metis is already well established within section 35 of the Constitution. You are not talking about redoing something similar. That is already the law of the land. You are talking about implementing that recognition through legislation. You are highlighting and recognizing that Bill S-216 could be one avenue that Aboriginal people may choose. We can call it self-government, in a sense. To recoup those people that have been exiled from their communities over time, we will need to establish membership. Because constitutional recognition is already there, we need an act to implement that recognition. Is that what you are highlighting here as an important element?
Mr. Brazeau: With respect to the issue of recognition, we know that there are over 400,000 non-status Indians in this country who, for one reason or another, cannot be recognized as status Indians and have their nice little status cards from the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs.
You are right in saying that the Constitution recognizes the Aboriginal peoples of Canada. However, the issue that remains unresolved is who has jurisdiction for the different peoples. It is well established that the federal government has always claimed jurisdiction for Indians living on-reserve and for Inuit people. For Metis and non-status populations, that is a juggling act between provincial and federal governments. At the end of the day, these people, a significant population, fall between the cracks.
Recognizing who the Aboriginal peoples of Canada are in terms of fitting into a certain community of a larger nation, consultations come in handy and are much needed. Many people, because they have been excluded from a certain community, have given up because they are forgotten by their own people. In terms of consultation, go out to the communities all across the country and tell people to step up, because then we could enter into a larger discussion about citizenship in that particular community. That part does not need to be implemented by any legislation. That, to me, is only common sense. That is how people can come together to form their historical nation.
The Chairman: You feel that the government should not be instrumental in deciding who is recognized as First Nations people. Who would decide this? How would that be established? If the status quo of the present administration on the reserves will not accept people back and you do not want the federal government making these decisions, Chief Brazeau, how do you see this situation of citizenship or registered and non-registered status being established?
Mr. Brazeau: Perhaps one solution to that prevailing problem would be to eliminate the overall status provision of recognizing Indians in this country. Many indigenous peoples outside of Canada have eliminated that system of different labels for Aboriginal peoples, such as status and non-status. One example is the Maori people of New Zealand. They held a referendum several years ago and the Maori people, the indigenous peoples of New Zealand, decided to do away with the status provisions. In exchange, they benefited from economic development ventures and have special seats set aside in the Parliament in that country.
Who should do what now? This solution might be provocative at this point in time, but the decision should be vested with the peoples themselves. It should be the peoples of the true, historical First Nations who decide who their citizens are. They know, as we do, that citizens living throughout this country form part of those small communities but have no access to, or are not recognized by, their own people. The people themselves should decide who the citizens of their nations are.
Senator Hubley: Thank you for your presentation. My first question will be along the same lines as the chairman's. We must have assurance of the vision if government divests some of its responsibility. Obviously, that responsibility is closely linked to accountability, identifying status and non-status and deciding what label to put on groups of people is important. Do you have a clear vision of how the First Nations would do that or how your nation would do that? Would you run into the same problems as perhaps you are sharing with us today, that some people would consider themselves status where perhaps the nation would consider them non-status?
Mr. Brazeau: I was considered a non-status Indian until 1985 when Bill C-31 came into effect. Growing up, I was always an Algonquin person, regardless of which card the federal government issued to me. I was always a proud Algonquin person, and my parents raised me that way. After the amendments to the Indian Act in 1985, lo and behold, a nice, little status card was issued to me and now I am recognized by the federal government. As an individual, Aboriginal person, I do not need a federal government, or any level of government, to recognize me as anybody. What matters is myself, and that the community to which I belong recognizes me as being part of that nation.
To answer your question directly, if we moved in the direction where consultations were held with the larger nation, it would still pose problems. The system of status versus non-status in this country creates certain benefits for people. If they are status, they have access to certain programs and benefits, and more rights. If they fall into the non-status category, they are excluded from everything offered. Yet, those two people could belong to the same community. The issue is whether the federal government recognizes them or does not recognize them.
This question is clearly one of discrimination. The decision of who forms part of the community should be vested with the people. We have heard this time and time again. Many people favour the status quo under the Indian Act because it is difficult for them to move beyond what they currently receive from federal funding. They try to keep their small niche to themselves and to the minority of the population residing on reserve.
In Alberta, I believe a non-Aboriginal woman is chief of the Sawridge Band and she has excluded all the women who regained their status through Bill C-31. Therefore, a minority of the population on that reserve controls the entire business and operations of the reserve for the entire population, and this reserve is one of the wealthiest in Canada.
Senator Hubley: Negotiating self-government agreements can be a process that lasts for many years. There is also general acknowledgment that the Indian Act provides an unsatisfactory framework for contemporary relations between First Nation communities and government. As a result of these two factors, First Nation communities with the capacity to exercise wider powers of self-government appear to lack a recognized mechanism that would enable them to do so. Does Bill S-216 fill that void?
Mr. Brazeau: The draft bill does fill the void. That is because there is opportunity for bands to amalgamate, first and foremost.
If we talk about self-government, oftentimes the issue of self-government includes access to resources located on those lands. Here, I believe, we would deal not only with the current reserve lands but with the traditional territory of the communities who would amalgamate.
In my specific case — as I mentioned, I am an Algonquin — there are eight Algonquin reserve communities in Quebec and one in Ontario. There are nine reserves in total. This amalgamation would offer the opportunity for those nine communities to form the Algonquin Nation. Instead of dealing with specific Crown reserve lands, we would talk about the traditional territory of the Algonquin people, therefore allowing more opportunities to partner with private business or government business so the Aboriginal peoples within that nation could reap economic benefits of that traditional territory, as opposed to only the current reserve lands.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Senator Hubley asked part of my question, but do you think that in order to be a self- governing nation, we should have access to the Crown land and access to the resources for ourselves?
Mr. Brazeau: I firmly believe that we need to look beyond the current reserve system to talk about access to natural resources and other resources located on those lands. You know as well as I do that many communities across this country are located in remote areas, where there is little hope and few resources. Those communities cannot be economically viable the way they stand.
Therefore, the greater notion of the traditional lands of a nation as opposed to the current reserve or Indian Act bands, I think, offers more opportunity. It is only fair that if they form part of a nation, then all members of that nation should be able to benefit from what is located on the traditional territories of their people. That is how it was before the imposition of the Indian Act and before the arrival of the Europeans. As I mentioned, many communities do not want to move beyond the Indian Act because they have their safe operations going.
I do not want to sound too political, but if we want to offer hope to the Aboriginal youth, we have to move beyond what is currently there because that will not do anything for them. We have to look at ourselves in the mirror as well and evoke change ourselves, but I am not seeing that happen. A change in organization is needed and that is the reason for part of our message in the last little while. People need a voice out there and the current chief system does not provide that voice.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: I was glad you brought up the fact that you regained your status in 1986. I did as well. What is going on in citizenship from the point of view of the Indian Act is difficult because, as you said, we should have our own membership code without the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs or anyone else interfering. At present, I have a grandchild and that child does not have status although both his parents are native. There are circumstances where many of these children are not recognized. Therefore I am glad you brought that up.
Senator Dyck: Senator Lovelace Nicholas is being humble because it was largely due to her work that you, she and I were able to regain status. I am also affected by Bill C-31. As the bill indicated, there are so many different types of statuses that it is almost impossible to sort out. Our young people now find it confusing to figure out who they need to marry to maintain their status under Bill C-31 and the Indian Act.
With regard to the idea of the community receiving self-government and being able to determine citizenship, although I think that idea is great, what would happen if different communities decided to have different laws saying that some communities may take back section 6(2) Indians whereas other communities may say they do not want them back? We might end up with different First Nations having different rules. If we have intermarriage, I am not sure what that will do.
In Canada as a whole, we have certain legislation that determines who is a Canadian. Should we not have an overarching rule saying who is an Aboriginal within the various categories? The categories might still be confusing depending on which community you go to. What are your thoughts on that?
Mr. Brazeau: That is a good question and it poses a lot of problems, as you are probably aware. One solution, although it might not be the right one, is to look at eliminating the status provisions. A lot of discrimination happens within our own communities about the status and non-status issue because it brings about benefits for a selected few while excluding others. If we eliminate the status provisions, there would be less discrimination in terms of allowing legitimate people who are part of that community to be recognized as part of that community.
Right now, the Indian Act still has the status provisions, section 6(1) and section 6(2). Anyone who falls under section 6(3) is considered non-status. If we eliminated those provisions, it would be easier to come up with a standard set of criteria for people wanting to belong to particular nation. Again, that idea certainly has its share of problems as well.
We must also realize and acknowledge that this system is imposed on our Aboriginal peoples and communities. It is vested and we need to fix it because nobody will fix it for us. At least, if we can launch discussions among our peoples, that communication will go a long way toward establishing some criteria to move in that direction.
Senator Dyck: As a follow-up, we have not mentioned treaties specifically. We have talked about status. In terms of the treaties signed, they were likely signed between some of the historic First Nations and the Crown, in your view. If we eliminate status, do you think treaty rights, rather than going to individuals, would go to the whole group regardless of whether they are considered status by the Indian Act? In other words, try to tease out the treaty rights from the Indian Act.
Mr. Brazeau: Eliminating status would go a long way in that direction. Right now, we already see many programs and benefits that reserve communities receive remain within those communities. Many people are excluded from access to certain programs and services.
If we were able to establish our nationhood and our citizenship, and perhaps move beyond the status provisions, then it is clear and I think it makes it easier for the nations to determine who the treaty beneficiaries would be, while benefiting the entire nationhood, as opposed to having a discussion on who is in, who is out, and having discrimination and internal jealousies amongst peoples.
It would be easier to outline clearly the membership or citizenship of that nationhood and allow everybody to benefit from those treaties, which was the way before the imposition of many of these federal laws.
Senator Dyck: With regard to matrimonial real property, a bill is before the House of Commons dealing with matrimonial real property, MRP, that some First Nations support and some do not.
Under Bill S-216, do you envision that there will be harmonization with respect to Aboriginal women's rights and provincial rights? How do you see the division there?
Mr. Brazeau: We have been supportive as a national organization, including our provincial organizations, of the issue of matrimonial real property on reserve because this issue is a human rights one. It is one that has led to much discrimination of Aboriginal children and women, and we are supportive.
In fact, during the First Nations governance consultations, we were the organization who suggested that the federal government look into this area. In passing, it is unfortunate that some communities are against this right. These communities claim an Aboriginal treaty right to develop their own codes, when we have seen little movement on developing their own codes to offer that protection for Aboriginal women and their children.
The bill before us would harmonize some of those issues. First and foremost, we know the legislation will amend the Indian Act regarding the issue of MRP. Again, this being enabling legislation, the communities would then have the opportunity to take a certain portion of the Indian Act and make it work with respect to this draft bill. There would be some harmonizing. It goes much further than the Indian Act, which basically says nothing at the moment.
The Chairman: How does this process start, National Chief Brazeau? Obviously, membership and citizenship are key. You mentioned you are part of the Algonquin nation. Has your nation attempted to facilitate what we are discussing here about establishing citizenry in the Algonquin nation?
Mr. Brazeau: I think you will hear, and we have heard, many nice words from the Algonquin leadership on that subject, as probably from other communities and nations as well about the need to move in that direction. However, in terms of actual practice, little has been done. As I mentioned earlier, many communities are satisfied with the status quo. They receive federal funding each and every year. They continue to depend on the federal government to deliver programs and services on behalf of their on-reserve population.
The issue also ties into what I believe is a lack of leadership in some of those communities. People cannot hide behind this Indian Act any more and they cannot hide behind the rhetoric of moving in different directions claiming self-government. Everyone wants to be self-governing, but if they do not undertake the steps to get there, how will it benefit the people? That is not what is happening right now.
To move in that direction, we need different stakeholders and partners to support the notion for us, as Aboriginal leaders, to bring that back to our communities, whether they are on-reserve or off-reserve, and to spike a larger discussion and dialogue on change, because change is needed.
You are right: citizenship is important. The current system creates different classes of peoples. Our last count in some of our research, there were 17 different labels of Aboriginal peoples. It is nonsense. It should be brought back to what the Constitution states, which is that the Aboriginal peoples of Canada include the Indian, Inuit and Metis. The term ``includes'' does not mean Aboriginal peoples are limited to those groups, according to the legal training I took at a specific point in time.
We must come back to that definition and get rid of the terms treaty, non-treaty, status, non-status, Metis and the terms of nationhood such as First Nations or the X reserve. So many labels cause confusion. As I mentioned in the example I gave earlier about myself growing up, I was an Algonquin from day one until 32 years of age. That situation will not change regardless of a status guard and it will not change regardless of what any federal government says as to who I am.
[Translation]
Senator Gill: I would like to congratulate you on your language, on your courageous conversation and ideas. This is good, particularly coming from someone who is relatively young. There was talk earlier about a national umbrella organization. You also talked about belonging and territory. I would presume that the umbrella organization is one representing the Indian peoples or nations across the country — I am setting aside status and non-status, as mentioned by Senator Dyck. An umbrella organization would bring together representatives of the First Nations so that they could gain control, to a certain extent, of the budgets. In other words, Indian Affairs would no longer exist. This department may exist, but it would be controlled by an assembly, if I have understood correctly.
With respect to belonging, you are suggesting that the notion of status and non-status disappear. However, you want to keep your identity as an Algonquin. This is important because this is what forms the nations. There are many Algonquin communities, but one Algonquin nation. The Indian Act identifies communities or reserves as First Nations, but this is false. You could clarify this further.
As for the territory, obviously, there is the traditional territory. If I understood correctly, you want the reserve to disappear and the traditional territory to be recognized for a given nation?
Mr. Brazeau: In terms of belonging, you are quite right. It does not make sense to describe me as a status Indian from the Kitigan Zibi reserve. It is easier to say that I am an Algonquin who is part of the Algonquin nation.
We also need to specify — and I am not afraid to say this — that there are too many chiefs and not enough Indians in the country. This is why the various Aboriginal groups do not sit down together to discuss matters. There are too many chiefs. With these concepts of the nation, there would be a chief and a constitution which would include a mechanism for accountability systems and for accounting to the people. Instead of having, in my example, nine different Algonquin chiefs, there would be one leader for the Algonquin nation. That would be easier to manage and to recognize.
With respect to territory, I never said that I wanted the reserve system to disappear or that the people should move elsewhere. Yes, the system as it now exists must disappear, but that does not mean that the people residing in the territory need to move. It would certainly be easier if the members of the Algonquin nation were together to negotiate recognition of the Algonquin territory. It would be easier to obtain this recognition on behalf of the nation as opposed to nine separate, fragmented communities who often have claims with respect to the same territory. That is another issue that you dealt with before the Christmas holidays.
[English]
Senator Watt: I wish you all the luck in the world. This task you seem to be embarking on is not an easy one. I have seen you, I believe on Aboriginal Peoples Television Network, APTN, and I listened to what you had to say before this committee. I thought, this man will have many difficulties with the people, but at the same time he has something with which he can move and advance his people right across the country. That was my conclusion.
Someone has to take the lead. Someone has to take the issue by the horns and run with it; in other words, you have to deal with your own people. You need to make a full attempt to deal with your own people and fully consult with them to make sure they are participants in terms of the new formation. You will need a strong leader. I believe you have already recognized that and mentioned that here. The first place to tackle the issue is with your own people.
Are you planning to move this idea forward amongst the leaders across the country and bring them together under one roof and try to come up with consensus on what the plan should be at the end of the day? What you are talking about is long overdue.
Mr. Brazeau: Thank you for your encouragement. I have made no secret that the status quo cannot prevail and it is time for change and I have not been afraid to offer solutions. That does not mean those solutions will be the answers to the problems but at least we are sparking some debate and raising the level of debate, which is much needed.
The Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, in 2001 I believe, commissioned a demographer. This individual predicted that by the year 2129, the number of children eligible for status will be zero. The Indian Act was implemented in 1876, so we are almost at the halfway point. As a young Aboriginal person, I am tired of the rhetoric. Having said that, we have met with a lot of people in Parliament and with our Aboriginal brothers and sisters within other organizations. It is no hidden fact that it takes a little longer to get there and to sit down together, but I will not stop until it happens because it is needed. There is already an established Aboriginal leadership out there. There are five national organizations. There are over 600 communities. At least at the national level, if we can all sit down and have that greater debate, we may agree on everything, much like parliamentarians and others, but at least we can build on some consensus and move forward to provide that much-needed hope. Right now, the youth want jobs, they want a roof over their heads and they want to be able to sustain their young families. The issues are moving away from rights- based ones to ones on the social scale, but we should never do away with the rights. I do not suggest that, but we have to be able to provide that hope for the people because it is not there right now. Unfortunately, the statistics, as we all know, are dismal.
Senator Hubley: In Canada, we will soon need to define the term ``nation.'' Throughout history we have accepted that the term means a people of like culture. You belong to the Algonquin nation. I think you are probably also within the Quebec nation and the nation of Canada. Somewhere along the line, we will need to define quickly what we mean by nation. I want you to comment on that and I wonder if you see nationhood as primarily a political body or primarily a cultural body, where the lifestyle, the history, the language, so on and so forth are preserved.
Mr. Brazeau: Let me answer by saying this: I am a proud Algonquin first and foremost, but I am also a proud Quebecer and a proud Canadian. In my 32 years of life thus far, I have lived within the fabric of all three of those concepts of nation.
In terms of having that larger debate on how the role of the Aboriginal nation would figure, it would have to be both. It has to be both a political and a social one, much like Canada. Canada as a nation is there to represent politically the interests of the Canadian population while preserving the beauty of multiculturalism in this country. Within our own Aboriginal nations, that role is needed on both fronts.
The Chairman: Colleagues, there are a million questions we could ask. What would the government's role be, assuming this citizenship scenario evolved as we have discussed here this morning? Maybe the devolution of the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs would trigger this change. There are many questions with respect to self- governance. It is taking place already and should we continue with it? It has been successful where it has been implemented.
National Chief Brazeau and Mr. Fleming, thank you for coming this morning. We appreciate your candid and straightforward approach to the subject matter and we look forward to working with you and your people in the future. Anything that you feel you could contribute over and above what you have done here this morning, kindly contact the clerk of the committee. We would be glad to have any additional information to help us in making certain that we go in the right direction.
Honourable senators, we will suspend and go in camera for a short period of time.
The committee continued in camera.