Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Aboriginal Peoples
Issue 7 - Evidence - Meeting of May 25, 2009 - Afternoon
WINNIPEG, Monday, May 25, 2009
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples met this day at 1:18 p.m. to study the federal government's constitutional, treaty, political and legal responsibilities to First Nations, Inuit and Metis peoples, and on other matters generally relating to the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada (topic: issues pertaining to Indian Act elections).
Senator Gerry St. Germain (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: I am Senator Gerry St. Germain from British Columbia. As chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal peoples, it is my pleasure to welcome you to this afternoon's hearings.
Please allow me to introduce the members of the committee who are present. On my left is the vice-chair, Nick Sibbeston. Senator Sibbeston is from the Northwest Territories. Next to him is Senator Dan Lang from the Yukon. On my right is Senator Robert Peterson from the Province of Saskatchewan.
Honourable senators, elders, guests and members of the audience, our mandate on this committee is to examine legislation and matters relating to the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada generally.
On April 1 of this year, the committee decided to launch a study to examine issues related to Indian Act elections. The committee is looking at outstanding concerns related to the two-year term of office for chiefs and council as currently prescribed by the Indian Act. Our committee is here in Manitoba to seek the views of First Nations' leaders and citizens regarding what changes, if any, should be made in these areas to strengthen governance of First Nations and political accountability.
Our role then, as a Senate committee, is to consult and listen to what First Nations' citizens have to say, and to work together towards finding better ways to help First Nations' communities determine better governance relationships for their citizens and their government.
It is important to note that 252 First Nation band council governments conduct and hold elections in accordance with the Indian Act. This is roughly 40 per cent of all First Nations in Canada. The committee's elections study is primarily concerned with the First Nations whose elections procedures are governed by the Indian Act. The other 350- plus First Nations select their governance leaders as a result of self-government agreements or follow other leadership-selection mechanisms, such as hereditary or clan systems.
To discuss this topic, we have before us Chief Terrance Nelson from the Roseau River First Nation and Councillor Paul Chief from the Brokenhead Ojibway Nation.
I understand that both of you gentlemen have a short statement to make. My colleagues and I will have questions for you once your presentations are completed. If you are prepared, Chief Nelson, the floor is yours.
Chief Terrance Nelson, Roseau River First Nation:
[The witness spoke in his native language.]
I begin this afternoon by thanking the senators for their time. I am Chief Terrance Nelson and I am a representative of Treaty One. I speak today not so much as the representative of Treaty One, with a single Treaty One position or thought, but more with respect to my own feelings and view of the issue before your committee. The issue your committee is looking into is First Nation elections.
To understand why elections are so divisive in many First Nation communities, you have to look at the economy of First Nations people and communities. First Nations in Canada are at the 63rd level of the United Nations living index. Many First Nation communities are extremely impoverished, with some having up to 95 per cent unemployment.
Roseau River has more than 400 unemployed adults, nearly 77 per cent unemployment. Hence, becoming a chief and/or member of council not only means a guaranteed income, but if you want it, it also means the control of most of the wealth in the community. It is, therefore, easy to understand why elections in our community are so intense.
The over 633 First Nations in Canada hold elections in various ways, but the real issue is not about democracy, it is about control. I was once told an incredible story about how the British controlled a vastly larger population in India with just 14 British people. They did it by buying and controlling the maharajahs.
If you want to know the real history of how elected chiefs and councils are beholden to the Government of Canada, you have to look at the structure left behind by the British. The British learned how to control indigenous people by elevating some of them to positions of delegated power, power that answered not to their own people but to the occupying foreign nation.
What you have in most First Nation communities that elect their leadership under the Indian Act are elected dictatorships that ensure division and can facilitate corruption. To understand that statement, you have to study and understand how the British were able to colonize so many other people.
To be blunt, it is all about distracting the indigenous people with fluff and mirrors while the immigrants to our lands take the wealth of our lands and resources. The issue is still about who owns the land. Electing chiefs and councils is about ensuring Canada has a group that is fed money and power and can be blamed for all of the problems in the indigenous community.
The United States and Canada encompass an area of more than 7.5-million square miles. In the United States, American Indian reservations are 64 times larger than Canadian Indian reservations.
While Canadians and Americans see democracy as a Godsend, one must remember that Canada is the ninth richest country in the world, with nearly 3 per cent of the world economy, and the United States is the number one country in the world economy, with over 28 per cent of the world's GDP. Canada and the United States are the only two countries of the top 10 GDP countries that make it onto the list of the highest per capita GDP — the 10 highest per capita GDP. So democracy may be good in itself, but it is also clear that any system is better when the people have a good economy and have hope for the future.
Dissension in the United States, as the economy fails, goes into recession, and may possibly be headed to depression, is a real threat. Imagine if Canada and the United States had 75 per cent unemployment. Would democracy be safe? At the height of the great depression in 1932, the national unemployment rate was 25 per cent.
Your quest to stabilize the First Nations with elections on the same day, the promise of self-government and political stability has already been promised in the failed framework agreement initiative — FAI. On December 7, 1994, then Minister of Indian Affairs Ron Irwin was seated alongside then Assembly of Manitoba Grand Chief Phil Fontaine in a pipe ceremony at the Fort Garry Hotel, a ceremony that was witnessed by more than 1,000 First Nation people. In a solemn pledge, Minister Irwin promised native self-government, dismantling of Indian Affairs and a wish to be the "last Minister of Indian Affairs." He said, "As I go out the door at Indian Affairs, I want to turn off the lights."
Personally, I saw Minister Irwin as a man of integrity and vision, but he may not have understood the system he was working in. While ministers, MPs and senators may truly want to see progress in First Nations and the economies of First Nations prosper, the reality of the bureaucracy that feeds on the poverty of First Nations must be acknowledged and understood, if a new system of governance is to have any hope for success.
The huge bureaucracy of Indian Affairs, who saw Minister Irwin as a threat, simply implemented the time-honoured process of distraction — that is, they gave the Indians money to study the FAI. The outcome: $55 million and a decade later, FAI was dead. Today, the promises of that initiative are almost forgotten.
Your proposed initiative must be set differently if it is to have any chance of success. The less you have to do with Indian Affairs, the better. The less the Minister of Indian Affairs is allowed to oversee the elections of First Nations' chiefs and councils, the better.
Treaty One should have elections all on the same day. They should be able to appoint electoral officers, have a single, overall appeal process and a judicial system to review the outcome. In order to do this, a Treaty One constitution must be developed and approved by the people of Treaty One. There must be time for each of the seven First Nations of Treaty One to opt into the system.
The most important factor in all of this is to ensure that the Government of Canada has no oversight or approval of the internal governance of Treaty One.
Treaties were sacred agreements between nations. Treaty One was signed with the British Crown on August 3, 1871, at Stone Fort. Our ancestors signed the treaty with clear intentions — to preserve our way of life, to ensure our sovereignty within our reserved territories, to ensure shared benefits from all 16,700 square miles of our territory and to have peaceful, respectful co-existence with Her Majesty's white and other subjects.
Today, 900,000 people inhabit our 10.7-million-acre traditional territory. The immigrants to our lands have enjoyed immense benefits from our 10.7-million-acre traditional territory. The entire City of Winnipeg, where you are today, is in our territory.
Our position as Treaty One is clear. Before the immigrants got to our lands, we owned all the land. Our rights were inherent, not granted by any other race or people. The Crown did not give us any land in treaty. The Crown had no land to give us. The Crown could not give us what was already ours.
We never ceded or surrendered our traditional territory. We agreed to share the benefits of our lands. To gain the consent of indigenous people to allow Crown access to our 16,700-square-mile Treaty One territory, the Crown promised and undertook definite and binding obligations, some of which were documented in the treaty text.
The Crown promised in the 1871 treaty negotiations to meet with us in the future to clarify the benefits of treaty. That promise is written in treaty as: ". . .and that they may know and be assured of what allowance they are to count upon and receive year by year from Her Majesty's bounty and benevolence."
Today, the governments of Canada try to convince the public that the First Nations exist on the good graces of the taxpayers. We never agreed to impoverish ourselves, to give everything to the white man and keep nothing for our own benefit. For the government to take that position is ridiculous. No people would ever agree to such conditions, unless it was at gun point.
Our governments are our own. We have a right to self-determination, to self-government on our own merits. We are a distinct people, with land, with language, and with all the other traits of nations as defined in international wording.
What you propose in your deliberations will succeed if you start from a position of respect for the rights of First Nations, respect for the conditions of treaty, respecting the right to peaceful co-existence.
We want a share of the wealth of our own lands, the ability to finance our own governments from the wealth of our lands. We want respect for the treaty agreement. The city you are in today is in our lands. In order to use any of these lands, you pay somebody for that right. All the immigrant governments collect benefits from our lands, but they do not pay us any share of those benefits.
You have a choice. You can initiate another FAI process, which is doomed to fail, or you can use the treaty and implement payment to the indigenous party to the treaty. If it is the latter, we will have the ability to finance our own governments.
We look forward to your report, to see if there is any real hope for change.
That is my personal statement, as Chief of Roseau River.
We have gone through all of this process before. Elections are not the only important thing. When there is 77 per cent unemployment in my community, elections are important only because people need a job. I guess that is what we are talking about here. How do you create? How do you lift the economic sanctions, even if they are undeclared in our communities? To have 77 per cent unemployment in a community and to expect that democracy is going to save it is unrealistic.
Meegwetch.
Paul Chief, Councillor, Brokenhead Ojibway Nation: Good Afternoon. Thank you, senators, for being here today. Welcome to our territory, ladies and gentlemen, elders, guests.
I would like to begin by talking about the one-day election and some of its hindrance in regards to us. It is hard for us to maintain continuity within our own tribal councils when there are seven bands that work collaboratively with each other, when our elections are yearly, monthly, and sometimes daily. It is hard to achieve continuity in regard to the programs that we are trying to run effectively by working together. With respect to our First Nation, on reserve, the average turnout on election days is about 97 per cent; it is about 26 per cent off reserve, increasing annually, every year.
With that said, in Manitoba, whether we are talking about municipal government or federal elections, I do not believe that more than 13 per cent of its total constituency votes.
When we have large votes in regards to our First Nations communities and we need 51 per cent to actually make them eligible for our community, it is damn near impossible to make it. We always go to the second vote, which is just the majority of whether it is a nay or a yea.
I would like to point out some of the things that hinder our community from progressing. Brokenhead is comprised of 1,500 members, 500 of whom reside on the reserve and the remainder within Winnipeg and other urban areas.
I was born in Pine Falls, Manitoba. I am allowed to vote for Brokenhead Ojibway Nation but I am not entitled to vote in Pine Falls, Manitoba, where it is actually the opposite for a First Nation person, where they have never resided within the community the majority of their life and yet they are still given a vote.
Brokenhead Ojibway Nation is implementing a plan to become self-sustaining within 25 years. Our community is comprised of approximately 1,400 acres of land, 60 per cent swamp, 10 per cent highway right-of-ways, railroad right- of-ways, transmission lines and internal road infrastructure, and 15 per cent current businesses, school and housing development, which leaves approximately 15 per cent of our land for future development and housing projects. Keep in mind, we are proposing that twinning the highway throughout our community will be utilizing an additional 90 acres of our right-of-way.
Brokenhead Ojibway Nation signed an individual treaty land entitlement agreement on September 9, 1998, which entitled Brokenhead to an additional 14,000 acres under the treaty land entitlement framework agreement. Brokenhead had an opportunity to address the shortfalls to accomplish this goal set out by the chief and council for future needs of economic development. After the signing of the Brokenhead agreement, there was a two-year process in which our council members changed dramatically. It is difficult to maintain continuity and to stay involved, which the process of treaty land entitlement involves.
It is hard to work with any other First Nation, because councils keep changing year after year. The continuity of working with each other in partnership is almost impossible because we spend a majority of our time updating and educating new and outgoing council members.
Our First Nation has followed the rules and has done its best to accommodate and implement the agreement. However, without the full support of other parties, strategies or agreements, our entire First Nation is kept at a standstill. Our First Nation has less than four years to accommodate the 15-year agreement, which requires 10,000 acres of land, which seems like an impossible task given our current situation.
Currently, we have just made 4.6 per cent of our total allocation of treaty land entitlement, as a result of election promises, partnerships and the annual election process.
The commitment to convert 1,500 acres a year has been allocated to the north, seeing that large targets of land can be converted to reserve, to maintain a commitment by then INAC Minister Jim Prentice when he was in Manitoba.
The commitment falls short, to acknowledge that more difficult parcels that may be acquired revert to the south, due to third-party interests, such as municipalities, provincial parks, Manitoba Hydro, MTS, mining, forestry allocations, and cottage associations and so on.
We, as First Nations, have spent an enormous amount of time educating municipalities on treaty land entitlement. Given the comings and goings of individuals, it is hard to maintain continuity and friendships and relationships.
Once our land is acquired and submitted to INAC, we have to wait and be allocated a slot on the dashboard — INAC's vision of what they see as a priority with respect to lands, as well as funding permits that are outlined. The addition to reserve policy needs to be revised to assist in implementing the Manitoba TLE framework agreement and not impede the implementation.
It is so hard and difficult to do this, when, I hate to say it, we only have one good year of working as a council member, because the next year we are in election mode. As I say, with a high turnout in the election process, we are spending the majority of our time, not so much campaigning, but raising awareness for the membership to see the things that we are trying to accomplish. It is difficult also when we try to work with our neighbouring municipalities and they are going through an election. The work that we have accomplished within the year is useless, when it comes to next year, and we start all over again. That might change in the next year because our councils might be going and our chief might be going.
It is chaotic working with our tribal councils. We cannot even commit to finishing our constitution, because councils change monthly, every six months, every year. This year, two of our tribal council members are up for election within this year. Hence, it is very difficult to maintain continuity and to focus on what we actually want to attend to, when visions, people and priorities change almost monthly.
I would like to go further and further into the treaty land entitlement process, but I just want to point out those large issues related to it to this committee, that it does bother us, it does hurt us. If we had the same opportunity as municipalities have, such as a one-day election, we would have a stronger working relationship. We would have a four- year window to work with our municipalities, villages, town-sites and so forth, to actually accomplish some of these things.
First Nations have always been looked upon as the cause of the problem. I am here to say that we do not want to be the cause of the problem, rather, that we are here to be the way out of this problem. We want to be an asset to Manitoba and Canada, and the only way we can do that is with good governments. The only way we can be true good governments is to have an equal share and equal stake in the way the governments of Canada run, the municipalities and so forth.
We are undermined by Indian Affairs, the Indian Act, and the way its process is settled. Again, two thirds of my constituency does not live on reserve, but they are all entitled to a vote. My constituency is spread throughout Canada and yet they are still entitled to a vote.
The Internet is wonderful thing, but it is only as good as the people who are utilizing it and spending time on it. We lack resources in keeping in contact with our constituency; we lack resources in getting mail-outs to them, so they understand what is happening in their own backyard, in their community, their home.
There are members who have never lived in our community that still hold a card that says Brokenhead Ojibway Nation. When you meet those individuals, whether it be in Vancouver or elsewhere, and you ask them where they are from, they never say Vancouver, they say Brokenhead, even though they have never resided in that community. Their heart is where their community is. It does not necessarily have to say on the back of a treaty card.
Our community and our membership make us more accountable than do regular citizens of Canada, Manitoba, and the municipalities. This is apparent by the number of people who come out to vote on our election days.
I was hoping that Canada could learn from our process and thereby get more than the 13 or so per cent of eligible voters in the various elections across the country.
I will stop now. I look forward to your questions.
Meegwetch.
Chief Glenn Hudson, Peguis First Nation: Welcome to our Treaty One territory. I am very glad to be able to make a presentation here today.
We appreciate the senators' willingness to come here to discuss our concerns and your concerns relating to governance matters. We hope that, before you leave, we will have a better understanding of one another.
As senators, you are part of the Crown's Parliament and, as such, propose, pass and amend laws that Canadians must follow and laws that the federal government must follow. We realize the system is complicated, but we would remind you that you do have the ability and the power to initiate, to advocate and eventually to obtain the support of your colleagues in Parliament. Frankly, we hope we are successful in convincing you that what we are seeking is just and reasonable and good both for our people and Canadian citizens in general.
We hope you are successful in motivating to get action and hope you will continue to act vigorously until you are satisfied that our mutual objectives are met and there is a new reality, for the benefit of Canada and all our peoples.
I want to talk about some of the priorities that need to be addressed regarding governance about election rules. It is important for you to know what is being governed and what the situation is with those rules that are being used. It is very difficult for us here today to talk about something that is important but not a priority as compared to other priorities that press on our lives day after day after day.
We are in a state of constant crisis and constant trauma. A court ruled weeks ago that unless Parliament takes remedial action within 12 months, the entire Indian Act will be smashed to shambles. The federal government has not consulted with us with regard to the action that should be taken. Despite the alarming situation, the federal government has not even had the courtesy of telling us what it is contemplating.
Our people are dying before their time. Our children are committing suicide. I pulled an article out of the Winnipeg Free Press recently that talked about the root causes of suicide by children, and specifically a report that was done and concluded by Michael Chandler. It was found that commonly cited characteristics — levels of poverty, location of reserve, number of children in care, unemployment rates and family structure — are not reliable predicators of community suicide rates. According to the article, suicide rates are closely tied to the degree to which a community is involved in self-government, land claims, education, health services, cultural programs and language preservation. The more control a community has in these areas, the fewer suicides. Obviously, the first one is self-government.
Assumptions were made that a community with greater control over its affairs would be more likely to have the resources and the resilience to meet its social and economic problems; likewise for the individuals within the community. That is what we are here today to present and, obviously, to understand in terms of our issues as far as governance is concerned.
We, as chiefs of Treaty One, are developing a constitution that will govern the collective Treaty One First Nations. Only by us governing ourselves under our rules will we be able to deal with this situation that we have inherited from the Indian agent.
Our last speaker will discuss this further.
The constitution is not intended to replace the system of governance adopted by any of the Treaty One First Nations to govern their own community. Obviously, we have our different processes. I know Roseau River First Nation is different than Peguis First Nation, which we are currently developing.
To reflect on some of the issues that were presented earlier by Chief Nelson and Councillor Chief, just take the example of Roseau River. There are some issues that came as a result of our stand in Treaty One. As chiefs, we feel that there is a lot of control placed in the hands of the federal government, more specifically the Minister of Indian Affairs, in calling elections.
Take the example of Chief Nelson: He won the previous election and there was a call to have a re-election. Well, guess who came out on top? Chief Nelson, the very first choice in that initial election.
The same is true in Peguis. I went through a process of many appeals under the Indian Act. In the end, it found that there were problems with the existing electoral system. In fact, there was corruption as a result of the practices of the former leadership. When it came down to having to go through due process under the Indian Act, and under band elections, we ended up having to resort to judicial review, which we paid for by fundraising throughout the community. In the end, that was the result. There was corruption. How long was it before the next election that that result came out — about a month and a half before the next election. So the judge decided not to displace the existing chief and council at that time, just because it was a month and a half out from the next election. It did not address the problem associated with, obviously, the root cause, that being corruption there.
Now, when I have been in office, obviously there are appeals that have been launched. The first one was dismissed and there is a second appeal now. Some of the problems that we face associated with this process in terms of ending corruption — obviously, we have our structures in place, and there are practices in place. However, traditionally, as leadership in our First Nation communities, when you have a problem as an individual, who do you go to? Who do you go to? You go to the chief and council. In the federal government and, obviously, within the provinces, right down to the municipalities, if you have a problem with social services, for example, you do not go to the prime minister, you do not go to the premier, you do not go to the mayor, you go see an administrator of social services.
So the mentality within our community of implementing and adopting a non-First Nation, non-indigenous, system does not work for us. It has to be developed and evolved by our own communities and by our peoples. That is the only way it can work.
I certainly do not promote somebody stepping in, in terms of knowing what our best interest is. In the community, we undertake a system that is open and transparent, and obviously there is redress there also. That redress has to come from our individual members and our First Nation, because they know when there are issues involving our governance. With the existing structure, that system does not work.
That is why, at Peguis, we are in the process of establishing our own custom governance and our own custom process. We feel it is coming from the people, from the community; it is coming from the people that, in their hearts, they want to see good governance and they want to see us move forward and move forward together, collectively. With the existing structures — I would not say it is out in left field, but it is not reasonable for us. In order to undertake good governance, it has to come from our communities.
As part of this presentation, I would like to comment on our rights to govern ourselves. It was given to us in our treaty and through the Creator. We have had it from the beginning, and we have it today to a certain degree. We have never ceded or surrendered that.
Obviously, we want to exercise our right in terms of knowing and proceeding with respect to our governance structures. We have never agreed with any government in Canada to relinquish our right to govern ourselves. Never. It has just been implemented and imposed on us.
Our rights are implicitly and explicitly recognized in our treaty with the Crown, and we would deal with no one other than the Crown, as mentioned in the earlier presentations.
If the federal government believes it has the right to govern us, we would ask it to show us how and when such a preposterous proposition could become fact, a matter of law.
In addition to the treaty, section 35 of the Constitution of Canada limits the House of Commons and the Senate from passing any law that will invalidate our rights. Any legislation that would interfere with our rights, including our rights of self-government, is invalid and is of no power.
Those are some of the comments I wished to make here today.
In conclusion, to expand a bit more on the international law, article 18 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People states, as follows:
Indigenous peoples have the right to participate in decision-making in matters which would affect their rights, through representatives chosen by themselves in accordance with their own procedures, as well as to maintain and develop their own indigenous decision-making institutions.
Article 20 states:
Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and develop their political, economic and social systems or institutions. . .
Finally, article 23 states as follows:
Indigenous peoples have the right to determine and develop priorities and strategies for exercising their right to development. In particular, indigenous peoples have the right to be actively involved in developing and determining health, housing and other economic and social programmes affecting them and, as far as possible, to administer such programmes through their own institutions.
I believe that is what we are here today to achieve.
I do want to thank you for the opportunity to present some of my experiences and to share how we wish to proceed in terms of effecting the policies, the legislation, et cetera. Thank you.
The Chair: Treaty One is seven First Nations — and I know it is hard, I wish the seven chiefs were here. Unfortunately, we had Chief Fontaine here earlier and he had to leave. Nevertheless, do you think there is consensus amongst the Treaty One chiefs to proceed as an amalgamated group and possibly set up a pilot project on this particular issue?
Mr. Nelson: I think one of the things that is critical is to see the benefits of something. If there is a benefit in it, obviously, people will come to that proposition and say, "Okay, let us get this thing done."
I know for us, as Treaty One, what we are saying very clearly is that we are much better as a unit, as a united group, as Treaty One.
In the past, the INAC bureaucracy and the governments, provincial or federal, have picked this off one at a time. Treaty One has stated very clearly that we are going to develop the constitution, we are going to develop the judiciary, we are going to develop as a government. At some point, we even want to license our own automobiles — have our own Autopac, have our own driver's licence — basically, have our own Treaty One government within our territory, the 10.7-million acres of land.
The election issue is certainly something that we need to tackle. It cannot be imposed. One of the things I made clear in my statement is that we would appreciate the government coming to us and saying, "Yes, you have the right to look after yourself." It is ridiculous really, if you really think about it, that the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs can actually say: "You are no longer the Chief of Roseau River," or "You are no longer the Chief of Peguis; I hereby nullify your election."
What municipality would allow a First Nation to do that to them? Would the City of Winnipeg allow somebody else to have overriding power over it? The province would not accept that. The federal government would not accept that. No other group would ever accept that. Yet, it is done consistently to First Nations.
The Chair: Well, if there were the will, do you think that it could proceed on an incremental basis — for example, start with the election process? I realize there are many issues out there that affect you, but in recent times this committee has tried to focus on recommendations. What we are doing here is listening, and we will merely make recommendations to government.
Mr. Nelson: What I have said in the prepared statement is that Treaty One should have elections all on the same day. They also should be able to appoint electoral officers and have a single, overall appeal process and a judicial system to review the outcome.
In order to do this, a Treaty One constitution must be developed and approved by the people of Treaty One. There must be time for each of the seven First Nations of Treaty One to opt into the system, which is critically important. As Chief Hudson stated, the seven First Nations are different. They elect differently. Some of them are under custom of the band, some of them go through six weeks in the Indian Act elections. We have two weeks. We have a constitution that we follow at Roseau River. However, if there was a constitution that we could go to at Treaty One such that we would hold elections all on the same day, we would opt into it at some point. However, that would be a decision of the First Nation.
Mr. Chief: I would love to say, yes, but there again, consultation is a big issue. Just because we hold the title of chief and council within our community — we still have to go to our constituency to assess what they feel is correct for the community. As such, having this date and the political will of having it there does not necessarily mean that the community wants it.
For some communities, four years is not enough; for others, four years is way too long. That being said, it has to be left with the people to make that choice.
It is a lot simpler for our community to get in people where there is high interest, because we have a large turnout. If it was in the hands of Canada, I think you would have a harder time to drive this home and it would take longer to actually become legislation. Our people keep us accountable in one way, by casting a vote. You are either in or you are gone. It is all because of what you have done in those past two years.
That being said, I think Treaty One is up to the task. We would like to have this at our plate first and have the first opportunity to do it. However, as I say, we have to have consultation, and our consultation is with our membership, which Canada should learn from, because the rules are so much different when it comes to First Nations passing laws and so forth compared to the regular government.
The Chair: How long would it take to do this, though? I am looking for solutions, for practical solutions.
Mr. Chief: As Terry said, everybody has a different process. We have monthly meetings within our community; we could identify one of the monthly meetings as the vote process, the election process. From there, we can get back. I really could not say for Peguis, Roseau and our other communities.
Mr. Hudson: I would just like to add to that. I have been following — and obviously leading this process as far as establishing a custom process at Peguis First Nation — other First Nations on how their implementation goes. Currently, we are under the Indian Act. To achieve that consensus, in terms of amalgamating elections under Treaty One, is reasonable and I think it can be done.
I know we have our own processes. However, when you look at the seven bands, within a one-month time frame four of them will call their elections. I believe Sagkeeng, Roseau, Peguis and Long Plain — all of their elections currently are within a one-month period.
I think it is possible. However, when it comes to interruptions and decisions by the minister in terms of overturning elections, that may cause some problems in terms of by-elections. However, having that common election date stand is something that will need to be addressed.
As far as Treaty One First Nations are concerned, we are looking at examining specifically that, but also in terms of short-, medium-, and long-term issues, the government of Treaty One First Nations, a council of chiefs, for example, a council of elders, a council of youth, of women, and also of men. There are many things that we certainly need to take into consideration in realizing these. Amalgamating our elections certainly would be a start.
I know, as mentioned, there are different processes in place. Roseau has theirs, we have ours that we are establishing, and then there is the Indian Act. In terms of the time frame around it, I think your best chances of success would be calling amalgamated elections within Treaty One.
Senator Lang: It is a fairly complex question. It is important to realize, as I think the chairman has said before, that we are here to listen, to try to understand what we could do to help, as well as give a good examination — if federal legislation were necessary — of what could we recommend, in part or in policy.
I would just like to ask a question right off the bat here, because we are talking longevity of office here, whether a longer period in office would be better for the community. My question is for Chief Hudson, Chief Nelson and Councillor Chief.
Chief Hudson, how long have you been the chief of your First Nation?
Mr. Hudson: This is my second term, going on the third year.
Mr. Chief: This is my eleventh year, which makes, I believe, six terms, and I have never campaigned once, for the record.
Mr. Nelson: I just got through my fifth election, and I will speak more about it tomorrow. However, in Roseau River, we have had four elections since 2003, where, for the first three elections, the exact same council was elected. This last election, we had one change, one council member change.
Senator Lang: This leads me to my next question. If the term were extended to four, how would it make it that much different for you, because you do have, obviously, a constant membership as far as the councils are concerned?
Mr. Nelson: Actually, no. In Manitoba, there are 64 First Nations, all electing at different times. So you get to see, especially at this time, the Manitoba chiefs or the Southern Chiefs' Organization, or MKO — you see so many different faces regularly. You do not get to hear a lot or understand a lot of the issues. It is all a constant re-educating, getting some of the chiefs up to speed on some of what is happening in terms of policy. So there does need to be consistency where chiefs and council are elected.
There is some merit in this idea; it needs to be followed. However, you cannot simply impose things on people, because they must see the benefits of it. That is why I am saying that they should opt into it. In fact, we should look at not having big brother government, the federal government, saying, "Let us legislate this and we will impose it on 603 First Nations across the country." I think what they need to do is show them it actually does work. Treaty One is, in fact, prepared, as far as I know, to do a pilot project. That would probably be the best solution.
The Chair: How do we do this, though? How can we recommend to the government that this get done? To have people opt in, you must have a structure. If you develop something, there has got to be membership through the initial developers. Then, whoever wanted to opt in would opt in. How do you see that developing? That, to me, is important, as to how the first step is taken, and then the second and the third, to get to the point that we are speaking of.
Mr. Nelson: My concept is first that the people have to accept it. It has to be by referendum of the people. Hence, the people must be educated and must be involved in the process. So this concept that Treaty One is developing a constitution of uniform elections would have to be taken over to the community of Roseau River, and people would have to be shown what is being proposed.
The people would then ask, "How do we get accountability in this process? How do we get an appeal process? How do we appeal the election of certain people? How do we get electoral officers that are fair and unbiased," and all that kind of stuff. For example, in the election at Roseau River, my cousin is not my electoral officer.
The people have to believe that an election is unbiased. I think that is one of the things they are looking for. I think that is critical.
Mr. Hudson: I would just like to comment on terms of office going from two to four years. Just recently, two months ago, we went through that process in terms of an election every two years. The entire council was re-elected. There was a lot of heated campaigning going on and it seemed to divide our community even more than bringing it together, just by going through that process, even though the same people were returned to office.
My personal opinion of why elections were placed on two-year mandates in Indian country is to do exactly that, create a disruption. It was not to promote harmony, it was to create, obviously, problems within our First Nation communities.
I think the only way we can proceed, and certainly this is the way that I am planning on proceeding, along with our council and our community, is to have that mandated over a four-year term. In terms of two years, you spend six months getting reacquainted, or being acquainted with what you are faced with, the problems and issues. The next year is spent trying to address the problems and issues. Then, in the final six months, you are back on the campaign mode. So it just does not work in terms of wholeheartedly solving the problems within the community. Sure, you scratch the surface, but you cannot dig in.
Mr. Chief: You asked how it would help. First and foremost, money. Election processes are not free. As I said, two thirds of our membership live off reserve, so the vote is done through a mail-in ballot, through a courier service, which is costly. If there is a by-election, then it is done again.
Money is the main reason. The other reason is saleability. How can my community live up to a four-, five- or six- year agreement when elections take place every two years? The political will is not there, because of the two-year time frame. We would accomplish a much larger commitment, whether it be with the Province of Manitoba or Canada, on long-term agreements because the individuals will be there through most of the process, maintaining its commitment.
Right now, nobody wants to get into a long-term commitment because they do not know who is going to be the chief next year or the year after, or if they are going to be council members.
That said, nobody is willing to give a commitment after their two-year period. The commitment is not only to the individual, it is for the community. That is the problem. The community gets left out because people are only looking after their own interest, the two-year commitment.
Senator Lang: I do not disagree with anything that Councillor Chief has just said. I think a lot of what you said makes a lot of sense. However, I am kind of confused here. On the one hand, I have continuously heard criticism of the federal government — criticism that is probably quite justified in a lot of instances. At the same time, I am told that we have the ability, for the purpose of elections, through the custom code. So you have the ability as chiefs and councillors to, at least from that point of view, take that step away from the Indian Act and set up your own mandate, your own four-year mandate for your elections and for the terms of your election.
What I do not understand is, in part, why we are even having these hearings, to be quite frank. If you have that authority, why do not you exercise it?
Mr. Nelson: We exercised it at Roseau River in 1990. One of the things that is critically important is to understand that there is 77 per cent unemployment in our community. In terms of oversight from the Department of Indian Affairs, regarding the economy of Roseau River, it is pretty clear that we spend much of our time as chiefs and councils just doing reports for the government. We are doing reports for INAC. It is not about just the election, as I said in my document here to senators. We are trying to educate the people, saying, "Yes, we can implement our own government, but if we do not have an economy to pay for the government, how do you expect the government to function?"
Senator Lang: I just want to go back a little bit further, because Councillor Chief said elections are expensive, which they are. There are a number of reasons why you could not logically say I should have a longer term.
My question is to Chief Nelson, because you do have some history. How come your First Nation has not actually exercised your right to have a four-year mandate?
Mr. Nelson: We did put in a four-year mandate at the beginning of 1990, when we put the custom election in place. I can cover it more tomorrow. I am appearing here personally on the Roseau River side of things.
However, as regards Treaty One, in terms of the solutions that we are looking at, we are all elevating it from a community election. Municipalities do not just oversee themselves. The province looks after the entire election process, right through the whole province. The same should be occurring with the seven First Nations that are Treaty One, who have a distinct territory.
So that there is no hint of bias, an electoral officer could come from Peguis to Roseau River, or vice versa — elevated to the point that people are saying it is not just a local election. I think we have the capability to do it.
As to what you are asking in terms of why the Senate is looking at this, I do not know. We are also talking about consultation and accommodating the Senate, some form of trying to educate the Senate as to why the system is not working.
Senator Lang: My understanding is that you already have the authority to do, in part, what is being considered by quite a number of your First Nations. Some of you are in the process of doing it and some of you are not, the way I understood it.
Mr. Nelson: That is the point I am making.
The Chair: I think Chief Nelson said he will explain why, in 1990, they went to four years, and now they have gone to two years. He will explain that, with the Roseau River. I think everything is unique. I do not think one size fits everybody, by any stretch of the imagination.
Mr. Chief: I want to talk about the custom election. It is a great word. The membership is going to ask, "Is this custom election geared to you or the council of the day, or are we talking about custom election for the community?" This is one of the biggest questions we face when we bring this question up to the community. People think the political will is there, but is it focused on the political people that are there right now?
One of the biggest questions that we are facing is what is our — the word comes from the Harvard project — cultural match? What is your community's cultural match? We have Christians, we have heathens, we have traditional people, and we have people that do not care. Hence, having a cultural match for that is a somewhat difficult task — to actually make it encompass all of our membership. That being said, people only look at the word "custom" and not so much "custom election."
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: In any Indian Act reform initiative, I am concerned about what measures might ensure gender-based protection?
Mr. Nelson: As far as the First Nations are concerned, I think we have protected a lot of our own people quite a bit more. When the gender thing is being talked about, the Indian Act is the one that actually did that. We ended up getting the blame for it. I think that is one of the things that happened, not only in the housing issues, but also all of the other stuff. For example, women being kicked out of First Nation membership — that came from the Indian Act.
One of the things that happened after these women were kicked out, when they talked about fairness and equality, they said, "Let us put the women back into the First Nation, in membership." The treaty allocated said 160 acres of land per family of five. Did this new membership come in and say, "Is there going to be an increase, an equal increase in terms of the land, in terms of the funding, in terms of the housing?" No.
What happened was that, when they came in, they ended up dividing the poverty that we had. So I think one of the things that happens in the elections, like what we had done in our community, the Government of Canada did not have to come in and tell us to allow off-reserve people to vote. We did that. We did it long before the Indian Act or anybody else tried to tell us to do it. We did that internally.
I think what we are proposing right now would be very fair to everybody, and all of our tribal members. Good governance is for the benefit of everybody. I think we would make sure that gender did not matter; I know it would be giving everybody equal opportunity to run.
Mr. Hudson: That is certainly something that we need to have a look at. As to the future of Treaty One First Nations, I would like to register this document — one being a council of women of Treaty One First Nations and ensuring that we do have gender representation. As well, there are additional items in here that I think the committee should look at.
The Chair: This is a draft of your constitution that you are working on for Treaty One; correct?
Mr. Hudson: It is an examination of the different entities that we are looking at establishing there, and the council of women is part of that.
The Chair: Would you allow us to table that for information?
Mr. Hudson: Sure, yes.
The Chair: Is it in agreement, senators, that this be tabled for information?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Mr. Chief: I just want to add something about equality. I want to point out that in the last five elections we have had female chiefs. Since the early 1960s, a woman has always been part of council. Our women are very strong and vocal within our community. There is an old saying that behind every good man is a woman as a boss.
In our community, there is no such statement as "a man said," or "a woman said." We say, "the community said."
Another thing I want to point out is this: It is not so much what your last name is; it is about what you represent within the community. Our community has been very vocal, very strong, and our women actually make up about 90 per cent of the program staff within our community. Women are very strong within our community.
Senator Dyck: The more I listen, it seems, the more I get confused, so pardon me. I picked up on something that you said, Councillor Chief, and that related to the confusion with the word "custom," that it means something. Maybe it means something different to the people in your community versus what it might mean according to the Indian Act. The system that you are working with is so complex. You have the Indian Act, then you have all the iterations that you are working within your community, and then you have a couple that have their hereditary system.
When I heard the word "custom" originally, I thought that meant reverting back to the system we had before contact. Apparently, that is not what it means.
Mr. Chief: Somewhere along the line the definition got lost.
Senator Dyck: Yes.
Mr. Chief: Yes, because they feel that we are customizing it, not so much custom.
Senator Dyck: It is words like that that are so important, because one word can have several different meanings. So when you are having a conversation, it is sometimes difficult to know which meaning is being used.
Mr. Hudson: I wish to provide an answer on that also. In terms of our customs, pre-contact or maybe even up to 200 years ago, obviously things have changed since then. In our community, as far as language is concerned, we are very fluent in the Ojibway language. However, today, less than probably 1 per cent of our community speaks that language. Obviously, those things change. The same is true with our governance system.
The bottom line is that it has to come internally, as Chief Nelson put it. It has to be the people who decide, not somebody coming in and exercising a right or intervention over us.
One of the things, and not to dismiss your question, on the intervention policy, is it part of the mandate of this committee to take away the minister's discretion in terms of intervening on our elections?
Senator Dyck: In fact, I was going to ask a question similar to that, because you raised section 35 rights. Using that argument then, Indian Affairs should have no business at all determining how elections are conducted within First Nations. I am not a lawyer, but I would think one must then challenge the Indian Act as and say that the Indian Act itself is unconstitutional and has not been brought up to 1982 standards — because the Indian Act was incorporated in 1874 or 1876, or something like that.
In essence, because the Indian Act covers Indian elections, then really it is not following the 1982 constitution.
Mr. Nelson: This is why, in my presentation, I said that you have to understand how the British put the system in place in the beginning. It was colonization. It was in the 1800s that this system was put in place.
In the beginning, in the Ojibway culture, you became a chief, and people put you in as a chief. The chiefs did not have power. You became a chief, you had a little bit of power — for example, what they call a rice chief. In the times of picking rice, you would become chief, or somebody would be selected to be a chief only for rice-picking time. In time of war, a war chief was selected. The chiefs did not have power in the way we have power now.
As a chief in my community, an elected chief, I get to say what we do with the government money that comes into the community. I could be a dictator in my community, if I wanted to be. I can determine who gets a house, who gets welfare, who gets educated. I can do a lot of things. I do not do it that way because that is not the way I want to govern.
However, the British way was that a few people were elevated, and you never had to deal with the masses and all of the other people. A little group of people would impose government policies on their own people. They were paid to do it. That is the system you have in place today.
Senator Dyck: To follow up on this subject, if the Indian Act can say to you, you are allowed to go to this custom code style of election, is that constitutional? You are saying that under section 35 it is up to you. So, really, how can they give you permission to do that when they should not be in there at all?
It has been suggested previously — I forget by which witness — that the parts of the Indian Act that deal with election should be removed. Actually, maybe they cannot be in there in the first place.
Mr. Nelson: I think if you go to the Indian Act — and my advice to the Senate is that to try to resolve the Indian Act would involve a long process — again, court challenges and everything else. If you want some success in this particular issue that you are trying to deal with, you need a model of success. This is what Treaty One is offering. Why not a pilot project, and just do it with a small group of people?
At that point, if you can show people that this does work, better that than trying to beat them over the head with a hammer, as Senator St. Germain was trying to do to. I think it is critically important to show them the success of it. We are prepared, as Treaty One, to enter into a pilot project.
Having spent $55 million on FAI to study how to implement — it is ridiculous, to have no results on that after a decade. It is important, if we are going to get this process done, that Treaty One should have the dollars to be able to do the constitution, to be able to get the electoral process, to have a model concept that is saleable to the people in the communities. They have to accept it at the community level.
Senator Peterson: I think most of my issues have been covered. However, there is one thing we can all agree on, that the Indian Act is certainly the root of a lot of ills out there. For us to try to change that might be like trying to change the Income Tax Act. It could take us another generation or two.
One point I would like to make is this: It is certainly not our intention to impose anything on First Nations people. Anything that is going to be done will be done with your consultation and with your people. The only thing I would like to see from this — I would like your opinion on it — is that this election renewal could be a first step in moving down the road to economic development and self-sufficiency. It is just one step. Could it be viewed as that in looking long range rather than just one issue?
Mr. Chief: I agree that it is the first step towards good governance. Currently, in our communities, we do not have opposition. Our opposition is basically people that run against the council of the day, and they are self-appointed opposition. We currently do not have parties with constitutions across this beautiful country. I believe that it is a step in working towards that.
Now, trying to get 633 First Nations to agree on that when everybody is going through an election that year — it is difficult to look at those large meaningful steps of good governance. So, for me, it is a step in the right direction, a start. We have got a long way to go in regards to good governance, but I think it is an initial step that has to be taken.
Senator Hubley: I think it is important to look at putting a structure in place, so that if you are only there for two years, you can at least address it before the next group comes in. We did have some witnesses suggest that by 2014 — is that correct? Do I have that figure correct, that that might have given you the time to go through the consultation, deciding that it was doable, and put the election in place at that time? I am sure that also must include the constitution and so on. Is that doable in that time frame?
Mr. Nelson: One of the things that needs to be done is concrete steps, first steps. Number one, I think there should be an agreement to do a five-year plan with Treaty One. Let us put some time frames on this. Let us put some achievable results in this. I do not want to end up in a framework agreement initiative with unrealistic expectations. Let us go to one achievable result — that is, that we have a constitution, we have a model, and take a good look at it. As I say, it has got to be saleable to the people in the communities.
Our communities want unbiased elections, and we want an appeal process that is valid, such that my cousins are not on the appeal committee and it is not just internal in the community where we end up. We can go to a level that, at Treaty One, we know it is a good election. You cannot have good governance without a good economy. You cannot expect that the First Nations are all of a sudden going to be really nice and good and everything is all good in the community if your economy is at 77 per cent unemployment. There is no way.
If there were 25 per cent unemployment in this country, the government would have a revolution on its hands. If you take a look at what is happening in the United States, the recession, lost jobs, there is news of mass killings and everything else, just because there are people in economic turmoil.
In my community of Roseau River, elections are just one issue. There is a $100-million settlement in our specific claims that we are still waiting for the government to act on. It is 160 years later. Some of the treaty land entitlements are 138 years later. Therefore, we cannot expect that elections are going to solve the problem. I think we need to deal with the economics of how to finance this, and not just go to our funding services officer and ask for a few more dollars to fund our government.
Senator Hubley: I believe it was Chief Hudson who mentioned strength in numbers. Working together, having a number of nations and a number of bands that have a similar governance structure allows them to network and work on similar projects, tackle projects; it makes the whole governance system a little bit larger. I am wondering if you feel that that is an advantage and whether it would be helpful to you as well?
Mr. Chief: Your first question about meeting that date of 2012 — I believe you mentioned that date, right?
Senator Hubley: I think 2014 was mentioned.
Mr. Chief: 2014.
Senator Hubley: I just wanted to know how realistic that was?
The Chair: Ron Evans brought that forward this morning.
Mr. Chief: Treaty One is the vehicle to make that possible. If we relied on our own individual communities — priorities change year by year. The focus has to be at a larger political body, in making that one of our main priorities, making it a mandate for Treaty One to meet those dates. It is our responsibility as affiliates of the treaty organization to make sure that, if there is a change in council, they are aware of these dates, aware that these are our priorities. Unless you have that political body or that organization in place forcing that issue, it can get dropped like a hot potato.
What I am getting at is this: If the community is not aware, and if they are all by their lonesome, it might not be a priority when you have 75 per cent unemployment. It might not even be on the radar. If I have a political body such as Treaty One making it a mandate, I think it is achievable.
Mr. Hudson: I also want to add to that. I guess as far as the first question goes, 2014 is obviously a target date. I think at Peguis we will be looking at trying to implement that within the next year and a half. In terms of having the amalgamated elections across Treaty One, yes, I believe it is achievable. There is strength in numbers, in terms of having the similar structures in place. I know within Treaty One, the document that I provided there, it does examine the different processes and the different structures. Obviously, this common election is a start.
Also, reflecting on Terry's comments and what I commented on earlier, land claims give us a chance to realize those obligations that have been long outstanding to us, specifically, the land claims.
If we could implement that by 2014, it would take us a heck of a long way toward achieving some of the true benefits that we should realize as First Nations people, including good governance and strengthening our economies and moving forward together as nations, and that being First Nations and Canada.
The Chair: What do you need to start this pilot program process? What would you ask us to recommend to government? What do you need? Is this a fair question? If this is what you are thinking, and it makes sense to me, and I am not going to speak for the other members, but I see more heads nodding in the affirmative, what do you need to start this process? You have got a document that you filed, a constitution or a convention — where do we go from here? We are at the point that we have to ask you this sooner or later. It is better to ask it in full committee.
Mr. Nelson: You should ask the elder statesman.
The Chair: The elder statesman.
Mr. Nelson: What number are we talking about there? What is doable within the government system? We have spent $55 million on an FAI and a failed process for 10 years. It is critically important, when you are dealing with seven First Nations, that we look at a five-year process, at $1 million a year, somewhere in that neighbourhood.
Mr. Chief: What we really need is regional commitment, and I am talking about Manitoba. It is almost a joke here in Manitoba when we talk about our department, because everybody is in an acting position. It is almost like Hollywood — everybody is up for an Oscar. No one stays in a position longer than six months, including our regional director.
That being said, what we really need is a commitment from our office to make this possible, not to hinder the process by changing faces, changing people for the sake of changing. We need them to work alongside us, with the commitment not only of dollars, but of resources, to make this possible. To me, if we got that, that is the first step towards success.
The Chair: Chief Nelson, do you have anything more that you would like to say?
Mr. Nelson: Yes. It is important that the Senate understand — if we end with the INAC bureaucrats going through an FAI-type process again, where the dollars are going to end up being looked at and there are so many reports we have to go through with the Department of Indian Affairs — that if the government is going to commit any dollars to this that the monies go to a Treaty One group. Again, I put it in my presentation, the less we have to do with Indian and Northern Affairs, the better.
The Chair: I want something that we can go back to the minister with.
Mr. Nelson: This is what we did, and look at the success we have. That is the kind of thing we want to see happen.
The Chair: Chief Hudson, have you got any comment to make on this?
Mr. Hudson: I would concur with the comments about establishing a council of elders. Obviously, we have our council of chiefs currently, the Treaty One, but a mandate to involve our men, women and youth in this in moving forward is important. Obviously, we need the resources to do it.
As the largest community in Manitoba, as far as our land claim goes under TLE, we do have the largest acreage, and I know four other First Nations in Treaty One that have long outstanding claims there. Let us see those through also. Without the land, people in our home communities — and this is coming from an elder — do not care about the money, they want their land back. This is how we are going to move forward. Achieving that will certainly set us in the right direction.
The Chair: Well, there is no question, I think this entire committee is committed to that, because we studied it, we made recommendations, we came up with the specific claims legislation, and we are riding herd on it as well. We are asking for updated reports as to where this actually stands. The minister was in here speaking to this issue of elections and what have you, and apparently there was a question of legislation, that the department wanted legislation to deal with this, whereas the Manitoba chiefs did not see legislation as being necessary. Is there any comment on that?
Mr. Nelson: Senator, under the treaty, "peaceful co-existence" — co-existence meaning that we end up having respect for each other. We do not interfere with the Government of Canada in saying who should be elected, nor do we interfere with the appeal process. I think one of the things we are saying is that we want to be able to take a look at fairness in our community of elections, getting ourselves out of the election process, that custom that they talked about here. We had government prior to non-Native people coming here. That was a much fairer system than what we got through the Indian Act.
The Indian Act is about dictatorship, it is about communism, it is about having the lands all in common. It is about making sure that the First Nation people continue to be impoverished.
For success, go back to what is critically important, fairness in elections, fairness in terms of the economic base for the First Nation people. If we cannot finance our own — if we have to come begging for a few dollars to finance our government, that is not going to work. We have to be able to finance our own government.
I do not know if you rented a vehicle here, but we had to park on the street here and pay $1 an hour minimum. If I do not pay that $1 an hour, I will get fined. If I do not pay that $15 fine, it comes back at $65 for parking for an hour on a piece of land, my vehicle.
The 10.7-million acres of land that we have as Treaty One, who pays for it? There are 700,000 people in the City of Winnipeg. How much is being collected by the Government of Canada for the use of our lands? There is no payment. Neither does the province pay us anything. There are pipelines coming through our territory, two new pipelines — 1.9- million barrels of oil per day. We, as Treaty One, are sitting down with Enbridge. They are saying, "We would like to pay you guys two, maybe five cents a barrel for crossing Treaty One territory." It did not sound like a lot, especially when oil was at $147 a barrel last year. Two to five cents for Treaty One per barrel. You know what the government said? The government said "There is no way you are going to pay anything directly to the First Nations."
They took us, you know. We ended up in court. We had a big court battle on it. Two cents a barrel was $13 million a year to Treaty One; five cents a barrel was $35 million a year for crossing our lands.
The farmers get paid, the municipalities get paid, the province gets paid, the federal government gets paid, every level of the industry gets paid. The Americans get the benefit of the oil. What do the First Nations get? Nothing. Zero.
How do you expect us to finance our governments or education or do anything if the benefits from our lands are not accrued to us?
With respect to direct payments from the pipelines going to First Nations, Minister Prentice, when he was in the Northwest Territories, was saying, no, they have to go to Ottawa first, and then you apply as indigenous people for some funding. That is what is happening in the Northwest Territories and Nunavut. All of the resources flow to Ottawa and then you have to apply back again. It is a ridiculous system. It is a system to make sure that we have to come asking for money.
First of all, I will not accept the fact or the idea that Indian Affairs has control over this thing. If you go down that road, it is a failed system right from day one.
Mr. Hudson: As far as legislation not being required, I do not think it is required in terms of us moving forward. As one of the senators said — I did not catch his last name.
The Chair: Senator Lang.
Mr. Hudson: Yes. His comment was that it has to be done in consultation with us and that that is how we have to proceed. The issue that Terry is talking about as far as our resources are concerned is that that should have been done in consultation with us, but now we are stuck with the system that we are faced with today. If you want legislation, legislate the government to give us our money in terms of natural resources and you will see us moving forward in a big way and getting us out of this precarious position.
The way I look at, it is legislated genocide for us as First Nations people. We should not be going down that road. We are the original people here and we are going to be here forever. When we have legislation in place like that, it only hinders us, and it creates the problems that we have today. As to legislation on the governing system, I do not think it is required. We just do it in consultation.
The Chair: That is what we wanted to know. If there are no other comments from the senators, I thank the three of you for appearing on behalf of Treaty One. I am sure we will be speaking to each other as this process proceeds.
If there is anything else you would like us to know, that you feel was not presented strongly enough, you can always get a hold of the committee clerk or researcher and they will bank all the information and bring it forward to us. Thank you, again.
Senators, our next witness is Chief David Meeches from the Long Plain First Nation.
The committee wanted to hear specifically from this community since they have recently reverted, my understanding is, to custom elections. Chief Meeches, you are free to proceed, if you have a presentation. You are accompanied by the former Chief of Swan Lake and now a executive boss at the Ojibway Tribal Council and a good friend, Robert Daniels.
If you have a presentation, kindly proceed, and then we will ask you some questions, if we are permitted to do so on your behalf.
David Meeches, Chief, Long Plain First Nation: First of all, thank you for the opportunity to be here and make a presentation to you and speak to the issue of elections.
I will provide you with a little bit of background about myself. On April 9, I was elected chief of my community. I must correct you, Senator St. Germain; our community reverted to custom in 1989-90.
The Chair: Thank you for correcting me; I was given false information. You have got it on the record, chief, so proceed. It was 1989, did you say?
Mr. Meeches: Yes, we started the process in 1989.
The Chair: When did it actually take place?
Mr. Meeches: In 1990. I will speak to the issues of why that occurred, to provide a little bit of background about myself. As I indicated, April 9, just past, I was elected chief of the community. Prior to that, I was employed by the Dakota Ojibway Tribal Council for a period of nine years. The significance of that I will get into, in terms of my experience.
I held three positions within the tribal council — policy analyst, director of operations, and most recently, for a five- year period, chief executive officer.
During that time, with respect to the obligations of the tribal council, we were obligated to our member nations to provide advisory services with respect to reverting to custom and, in the process and explaining our process, to develop templates with respect to election codes, things of that nature. We also conducted section 74 elections in the communities, and there were a number of them that we had done that for. Again, it is an obligation of a tribal council to provide that service.
In 1989, we undertook the process to revert from section 74 to band custom. We did that because we felt it was important to gain control of our own electoral processes. More important, we did that to provide to our people the things that section 74 did not, namely, allowing our off-reserve community members to vote. So we undertook that and it worked well for us. In the first stages of that, we allowed them the vote; what we did not do was allow them to run.
Again, the process that we underwent in terms of developing our own code was very cumbersome; it was very difficult for our community.
In 1990, we had a referendum and we conducted our first election under our new election code. Our terms were four years. I, at that point, was elected to oversee our elections and I was elected chairman of our election appeal committee. Gaining that experience, in 1994, I ran for council member and was successful under a four-year term. In 1989 — it kind of got to my head, I suppose — I lost in an election for chief at that time.
During that period of time, from 1989 to now, our election code has undergone probably four or five changes. When we first went into a process, when you identify custom, what we adopted was certainly not our custom. It was just a term that we gave it, you know, in terms of developing our own process.
Our only restriction at that point in time was that criminal record checks were required. Throughout the decade, we have changed it and made it more complicated to run. Today, I feel our code — I was not part of the development of it — is too restrictive. There are a number of things, a child abuse registry check and a criminal record check. We have to pay a non-refundable fee to become elected or to be nominated. We have to go under a number of things that, within our process, I think is too difficult.
When we first started the process, we had of course the usual number of chiefs run, but up to 24 to 38 council members run. Today, we have 13, because we have restricted that by way of our own process.
I know it may be unusual for me to criticize an election code that I ran under, but again, I think the process that is currently in place creates a lot of problems for us. In trying to improve things, sometimes we make things a little more difficult on ourselves.
Under section 74, with respect to the elections that we have conducted on behalf of our member First Nations, what I do appreciate — and maybe it is wrong for me as the chief to say that — about the section 74 process is that it provides a process that is understandable. I say that because of my experience in running elections and training staff to run elections.
There are a number of things within the Indian Band Election Regulations that are difficult too. What I mean by that is the fact that it is a 79-day process. It is difficult in that 35 of those days is from the time of nomination to the time of election. In those 30 to 35 days, we do a lot of damage to ourselves.
When you look at a federal election or a provincial election, there are 30 days from the time of dissolving government to the point of an election; ours is 79, and 35 days. The fundamental difference is the fact that we see and interact daily with our constituents, whereas an MP or an MLA will not.
I was talking to who I consider to be one of our most respected chiefs in our province the other day. He has done a significant amount of work nationally, a significant amount of work provincially, and now he does that as a chief of his community. He is a man I have a lot of respect for. We were sharing our experiences, and he was talking about getting a call from one of his community members with respect to needing Pampers. How often would an MP or the Prime Minister get a call like that?
So, for us, it is fundamentally different. In my opinion, if you truly want to hear what happens in our communities with respect to elections, I think you should hear from the tribal administrators and the people of our communities.
I am elected to a three-year term. When my term is almost up, I am going to be concentrating on getting re-elected, not on administrating an act.
In terms of the frustrations I see at the community level with respect to the term of office, we are looking at a two- year term; it does not do justice for what needs to be done at the local level.
I am a fortunate in that I have the experience and I have worked with many chiefs and councils, but there are those who are getting elected that do not have that opportunity and do not have that experience. In the first year, they are learning the job. In the second year, election year, they are preparing to get re-elected.
As I said, I served under a four-year term. That is also very complicated. During the four-year term, politically and strategically, we ended up calling an election early because four years was too long for us in Long Plain.
The Chair: You said four years was too long?
Mr. Meeches: Too long for us — with respect to the appeal process.
In all the elections I have overseen and conducted, from my staff and the elections that I have ran, I do not think there was one that was not appealed. In the early stages of our election process, it was a very long, cumbersome process.
In the elections that were appealed, it took anywhere from six months to two years before an election was heard. The instability and chaos that that creates is something else. It is very difficult for a chief and council, as well as community members, to proceed, knowing that, at any given time, they can get a letter saying a new election is called.
Surprisingly, under our process, my election was appealed. What I was very grateful for was the fact that our election process took five days. We heard quickly the end result of our election. I was very grateful for that, because I understood and recognized the fact that that was a process that could have taken some time.
Again, as I said earlier with respect to the term "custom," with contemporary process, our election act in the early stages also spent a lot of time in federal court. We had our elders speak, too, and one, in particular, an uncle of mine who was chief. He remembered that, as a boy, he was playing in a tree and sitting below that tree was the chief of our community of the day. My uncle was before the judge testifying what it was like when a chief was recalled. He spoke of a time when, in his early days, off in the distance a wagon was coming over the hill. In it was a group of people. They went to the chief, walked behind him and took his blanket off his back and told him that the people no longer wanted him as chief. Then they rode away and that was it. That was that for his tenure of chief.
Today, you cannot merge that with contemporary law; it is just not possible. So I have always had a bit of difficulty with the term "custom." The reality is, it is the practice of the First Nation in terms of conducting elections for a chief and council.
That concludes my presentation to you. I do not know if my friend here wants to add anything to what I have said.
The Chair: You were not here with the previous witnesses, but you are part of Treaty One?
Mr. Meeches: Yes, I am.
The Chair: You have been part of the discussions that have been taking place in regards to elections and terms of office?
Mr. Meeches: Unfortunately, just the most recent. I have not attended all the meetings. My priority is my people and my community. I believe, when it comes to governance, that you cannot have good governance if your governance at home is not working well.
The Chair: Well, a document was filed.
Mr. Meeches: Yes, I have seen that document.
The Chair: A proposal. Did you have any views on this? When we do look at this — I realize it is just a draft document, that it is not cast in stone in any way — do you have any comments about it, or do you feel it is a good start?
Mr. Meeches: I think controlling your own process is good, but I think going into that process with your eyes wide open and ensuring that what is in there is in the best interest of your people — if I am able to assess that, then I think it is a good idea. I have not had the opportunity to review.
In terms of a common election, as I indicated, I have undertaken a conversion process to custom. It is difficult enough to conduct one. Doing them in a multiple scale is something I have yet to see that would make anything easier. However, that is not to say it is not doable. Going into it, in my opinion as Chief of Long Plain, I would not make that decision without consulting my people. I think what needs to occur is a consultation process.
The Chair: I think that is consistent with the prior witnesses — that is, that consultation of their people is an absolute necessity.
Senator Sibbeston: In the North where I am from, up in the Northwest Territories amongst the Dene people, when people talk of custom, they mean things the way they used to be, you know, before a modern era and before the Indian Act came along. So one of the things, when they talk about custom elections, is to recognize that people used to live along different parts of the river and lakes and on different parts of the land. So you have different family groupings where everybody has moved to town now — but different families. Maybe you will have 10 different family groupings.
One of the ideas of custom elections was to have a representative from each of the major families. If it is a big family, maybe they can have more than one. There has been an attempt to recognize — and in our area, too — the role of elders. Elders are respected — hence, to have some role for the elders in our process.
At the moment, they are in the process of having an election for grand chiefs. They have an elders council who vets, who looks over all the candidates, not to veto, but to give an opinion on their beliefs as to who are suitable candidates. So, to me, those are the things that are different from the modern rules, that you incorporate northern or traditional approaches and try to make them work in today's society.
I was going to ask you — I do not know how many members you have in your band council. Canadians' experience with democracy is just people in a town. It is not a tribe or a group of people. People come to Canada from all parts of the world. So it is totally different from the First Nations who are, for the most part, all related and come from families. You are trying to have a democratic system in a setting where there are lots of families, relations and so forth.
Would you be interested in or willing to describe that situation and how it is so different from what would be the situation of a regular Canadian? It is different and it needs perhaps special ways of dealing with the question of leadership and representation and so forth. It is complicated.
Mr. Meeches: I think there are two points. First, geographically, you must recognize the difference between elections and the term "custom" in remote areas, where custom is retained and more prevalent, compared to the southern part, where there is a tendency to get away from custom due to things being more accessible to us. It is fundamentally different between a remote community and where we are.
If you look at what I will call the standard election process today, where everything is governed by riding, riding after riding, everybody within that riding votes for a candidate — each party usually runs a candidate; there are also independents, from time to time. Where we are significantly different is the fact that our community members vote no matter where they are.
In the election we just conducted in our community, ballots came in from all over Canada. That is the fundamental difference between the standard election and what we do under custom and what we do under the Indian Act.
Senator Sibbeston: Could you say something about the families, where First Nations usually consist of big families. It is hard to get away from that. A member of a family that has lots of members has a good chance of getting elected. Sometimes there is rivalry between families.
Mr. Meeches: Well, there is always going to be that. A real good example of that is myself. The last name of the chief I ran against, the respected individual I ran against, was Meeches also.
I think I heard the former witness talk about — with all due respect, I have to say that the only reason I was not sitting with the Treaty One group is that, as usual, I was late. That is the only reason.
In our community, in terms of opposition of each other, we need to become more structured. As it is right now, it is a free-for-all. Again, I go back to the point that we have 35 days from nomination to election day. Our community has 3,500 people. Four of us ran for chief in our community. During the campaign process, we were crisscrossing each other and cutting off each other to get to the first house. So it is not an easy process.
In terms of the families, there is not much you can do about that, other than the traditional type of campaigning, knocking on the door, whether you are turned away or not. I do not know if you mean it is an advantage that you come from a big family, or a disadvantage. I do not know if it is, as I indicated.
Senator Sibbeston: Let me explain that, in families, it is very difficult to see things in an objective way, because are your cousins going to vote against you or are they going to vote for you automatically because you are a Meeches?
In the community that I live in, Fort Simpson, there are two or three big families. Invariably, the chief's position is switched between the major families. That seems to be how it works. So family becomes important and it is a factor in every election.
That is something that does not happen in Edmonton or Winnipeg, where there are not big families. Maybe there are French people, maybe there are Ukrainian people, these sorts of things that have an influence on the elections. However, in the First Nations, the biggest factor is families. The size of a family determines to a certain extent whether a person gets elected. Is that true, do you think?
Mr. Meeches: Look at Long Plain. Our former chief was closely related to me; he was elected in 1998. In 1998, I lost to him. It is safe to say, if you were to look at our band membership, the Meeches family is a very huge family. So, yes, that is true. However, when you look at a population of 3,500, there is a significant difference in family size — with a population of 3,500 versus a First Nation with 500, where the family breakdown or size will make a significant difference.
Senator Lang: At the beginning, in 1989, you had gone to what we call custom code and there were four-year terms. You said that this last time you had a three-year term. Did you amend your custom code to reflect three years?
Mr. Meeches: Yes.
Senator Lang: So now your terms will be three years for both the band and councillors?
Mr. Meeches: Three years, yes.
Senator Lang: You said that it was too long. What did you mean by that?
Mr. Meeches: Well, look at today's minority government — when the time is right, you call an election.
What we observed at that time was that, strategically, it was in our best interest to do that. What I did not explain in that process is that our election, for the most part — I would say probably for the first half of the decade — was under controversy. We spent a lot of that time in federal court.
They talk about a recall provision. In our tradition, it has always been our practice to go to our elders. At that time, we went to our elders and we said, "We cannot work together; we need your recommendation in terms of what to do."
They told us to go back to work and to try for six more months. They told us to come back if it did not work. We went back. They directed us to dissolve ourselves and call a new election, and we did that. As a result of doing that, we were in federal court on a challenge to the elder's authority. The judge agreed that the elders had the authority to do that within our community. It was our custom, our practice.
Today, our code has kind of gotten away from that process. However, our recall provisions are very significant, so that is why we did that.
Senator Lang: I just want to pursue this for a second, if I could. I think you said there was an appeal to your election but that it only took five days. Now, are we talking about a recount to ensure that all the votes were valid, or are we talking a recall from the point of view of whether or not you were eligible or there had been some corruption or something?
Mr. Meeches: I guess there was a question with respect to the administration of our act. I will give you little bit of insight. Six months leading up to our election, we had had a referendum revising our election code. In order to accommodate our off-reserve community members, we undertook to have a poll in the major centres within Manitoba. We had a poll in Brandon first day. We had a poll in Winnipeg the following day. Then we had a poll in Portage la Prairie, and then a poll in our community where people were allowed to come in and vote. We also did a mail-in. We took every step to accommodate our off-reserve people. There was success there, because we had almost 1,000 people participate in our election. It was very exciting and very challenging. I was successful by 16 votes.
So, naturally, when you are talking about a close election, what came into play was our mail-in ballot issue. I sit before you as the Chief of Long Plain, so everything worked out well.
Senator Lang: Just to clarify, Mr. Chairman — the question was not unlike any other election, whether it be municipal or provincial or federal. If there is a short, very narrow election victory, then there is a recount. That is why you had five days and it was recounted.
Mr. Meeches: No. Our provisions are such — and I could be wrong — that if it is 1 to 10, there is an automatic recount.
Senator Sibbeston: Right.
Mr. Meeches: And if it is beyond 10, then it has to be requested.
Senator Lang: Requested by the opponent.
Mr. Meeches: Yes. No, it was not an issue of the recount. It was a question of the electoral officer using judgment that was not spelled out in the act with respect to mail-in ballots.
Senator Lang: Or interpreting them.
Mr. Meeches: Yes. Like discretion, and it is the same discretion that is applied under section 74.
Senator Lang: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to dominate this time for questions, but there is one area that seems to be coming up on a pretty consistent basis, this question of the ability to recall or to appeal either the election, number one, or two, the ability to recall the sitting members if the majority of people within the community do not particularly like the decision that was made last week. What would your position be if that provision were taken away?
I do not think there is any provision, at least in my part of the world, for a recall of those that have been elected. Obviously, people can protest, but I see this as being very divisive in the community — if a group of dissenters at any given day can call for a recall, given the low population numbers. Do you think that that particular section should be removed?
Mr. Meeches: I personally do not have a problem with it. I think if the circumstances support doing so, an election official should be recalled, not only among our First Nations, but everybody right across the land. However, you have to be strategic in terms of developing. I think the process should be such that people need to exercise judgment. I think criteria need to be established, such that the recall is based not on an allegation but rather concrete information and concrete conditions.
It depends, I think, in terms of the recall of an elected official. Our process is such that if there are certain things we do, conduct-based, on becoming a member of council or certainly within our community, harming a community member, those are provisions for recall. However, it is not automatic, not within our provisions.
With respect to the conduct of a councillor — or with respect to my own conduct, via one of the councillors — I can make an application and submit it to our election appeal committee and a hearing will be called. I have to be there to defend myself. The allegation has to be heard at the table. A panel of three individuals who are not from our community will hear it and pass judgment on us.
I do not ever recall, except the incident when I was on council before, that we ever had to do that. However, we have done it.
Senator Lang: Was that during the election, or was that after you, or he or she, was elected, such that a year into the mandate a complaint was lodged and you go to a committee to determine whether you can stay in office?
Mr. Meeches: Yes, historically. Today, we have not exercised that, but in 1996 we did.
Senator Peterson: Along the same lines, we have heard a number of chiefs today express concern about these appeals. Are they categorized? Can you call an appeal on anything? Can you give us some examples?
Mr. Meeches: There are discretionary appeals, say, at the discretion of the electoral officer respecting mail-in ballots. There are appeals with respect to mail-in ballots in terms of counts. I have seen that. There are appeals with respect to corruption, where people have accused elected individuals of bribery. I think section 74 and under custom for Long Plain provide a number of reasons that an election can be appealed.
Senator Peterson: So, it is all fine, but then what? Is there a process? Most of this can be driven by people who are not happy, they just did not like you, so they decide to appeal. Is there a requirement to substantiate corruption, say, by bringing someone forward to testify to corruption?
Mr. Meeches: Under the section 74 Indian Band Election Regulations, you are not provided with the opportunity to make a presentation on your allegation. If I were to appeal, I would not be provided the opportunity under the act to say, "This is my allegation." There is no structure to appeals. As an individual that has been accused by somebody, if I am successful, there is no opportunity for me under section 74 of Indian Band Election Regulations to defend myself.
What generally happens is this: Under the Indian Act, if somebody appeals an election, the appeal is sent in. There is a waiting period of 30 to 35 days. Then everybody who has been affected by the election is notified. They are given an opportunity to respond, and that is it. Then you wait for the results. If something significant occurs — and I know a couple of instances where people have come in and investigated the allegations. However, you are talking anywhere from 30 days to, in some cases, two years.
Senator Peterson: Who oversees this structure? Is it Indian Affairs?
Mr. Meeches: The region.
Senator Peterson: That is probably an area that should be looked into, moving forward on this whole idea of elections.
Mr. Meeches: You certainly need to revisit the appeal process. It is a process that creates a lot of uncertainty and chaos. As I indicated, I have run in elections that were appealed, and you do not know if you should be making any kind of decisions, uncertain as to whether you truly have the authority to do so.
Senator Hubley: In 1989 and 1990, when the Long Plain First Nations opted to revert to the custom leadership election process, what happened in that year? Did you go back to your people at that time? Did that year include consultation with communities? Perhaps you could explain that process to us.
Mr. Meeches: Well, because it was a new process for us — again, I go back to a structured opposition. We developed a structured opposition. We developed election act A and election act B and took both proposals to the people and asked them which one they preferred. We sat down at a table and argued about what should be included and excluded from our act.
The people were given a choice between two proposed acts. One act restricted who could run. An individual had to be age 30 to run under custom — of course, being a 19 year old sitting at that table, I opposed it. So it allowed us the opportunity to become structured and sit across the table from each other. We had an opposition at that point. That is what was created for us.
Ultimately, one act was chosen and sent off, and an order-in-council came in and we had a new election under custom. However, it was a difficult time for us. It was not easy.
Senator Hubley: You also suggested that you have made four or five changes since then. Did that have to do with having criminal checks and things like that? Were those the changes that you felt were necessary at the time, or still are?
Mr. Meeches: Well, yes.
I took a bit of a break and pursued other things. I was not part of the changes. However, the communication process within our community is such that, regardless of where a person resides, he or she was fully informed of what was going on in the community and why things were being changed. Every time there was a change, it went to the people. More important, the purpose was to improve the kind of candidates that were running.
Another good example was an education requirement. Another provision stated that an individual had to have five years of experience at the community level, community involvement. An individual had to have another community member attest to his or her community involvement, by way of correspondence.
There were many things in terms of evolving. Sometimes you go too far, though. Again, what I appreciated in terms of running or conducting elections was that not only did you have the Election Act, or the Indian Band Election Regulations, but you also had an electoral officer's handbook. A lot of bands under custom go wrong because we try to incorporate administrative procedures within the Election Act as opposed to separating them out. That is what becomes complicated.
Senator Hubley: Have you seen a positive strengthening within your community? Do you feel that it is an easier job to govern now?
Mr. Meeches: As a result of our being in custom code?
Senator Hubley: Yes.
Mr. Meeches: I do think it is, I really do. It established an ownership of our process. The most important thing is that we can say we own it and we control it.
Historically, where we came from in terms of being taken to federal court and challenging each other that way, it did good at that time. Today, I am grateful that those challenges are not there. It could have been so easy for one of our community members to have taken this last election to court, federal court, and it did not happen.
I think what is appreciated about section 74 is the fact that, when an appeal occurs and it goes against you, you have very little recourse in terms of federal court. That is not the case with us.
Robert Daniels, Acting Chief Executive Officer, Dakota Ojibway Tribal Council: As Chief Meeches indicated, we have the responsibility at DOTC, I guess through the advisory services, to conduct Indian Act elections on our First Nations. Within DOTC, Birdtail Sioux First Nation is under the Indian Act, Canupawakpa is also under the Indian Act, Dakota Plains has the hereditary system, they do not have elections. Long Plain is under band custom. Roseau River is under band custom. Sandy Bay First Nation was under band custom, but they were put into, under the Indian Act, section 74. Sioux Valley Dakota Nation is under band custom and Swan Lake First Nation is under the Indian Act. Waywayseecappo was also under the Indian Act. So this compromises all the First Nations within DOTC. You have heard this morning from the Treaty One First Nations that some were part of the tribal council as well.
We just recently conducted an election under section 74. I was the electoral officer and David was the deputy, at Birdtail Sioux First Nation. We did not have an appeal on that election. So it can be done, I guess, if you properly do all the things that are supposed to be done.
Just for the record, I just wanted to say that Chief Chalmers, Ken Chalmers, the chairman of the tribal council, was invited to present at this hearing. He asked me to pass a message on, as the acting CEO of DOTC, that he would not make it in the next few days, that he would prefer to be heard in Ottawa at such time as the committee resumes its hearings.
He wanted an opportunity first to consult with the other eight First Nations before he made a collective presentation on behalf of DOTC. I just want to say that for the record. We have made arrangements with your clerk to go ahead and arrange for that, if possible, whenever you reconvene in Ottawa.
Other than that, that is about it I guess. Again, thank you.
Meegwetch.
The Chair: I would like to thank both of you for appearing. Thank you for your presentation and for your responses to our questions.
Senators, we will now begin our open mike session. I would like to say that this is something that we have discussed, that we wanted to hear from people at large, as far as our First Nations study is concerned. We have before us three witnesses — Clifton Starr, Gerald McIvor and Norman Traverse.
Gentlemen, I am going to have to keep your time tight to five minutes. Make your presentation and then the senators will have the opportunity, hopefully, to ask you questions, if there are any questions of you.
Seeing I named you first, Mr. Starr, please proceed. You have five minutes.
Clifton Starr, as an individual: Thank you for this opportunity, senators. You do not know how cool this is for me, to be a young person and to actually be saying thank you to senators.
Earlier, the chairman stated that this is generally about the election act or the Indian Act, but it is generally to improve the plight of First Nations in any way possible.
Now, to me, this whole exercise — election act changes — is not really a big priority. Personally, I like election time, election fever. That is the only time people get active. That is the only time people care. Maybe you should have elections 12 months a year. That is the only time people will be engaged in processes.
To me, the issue is creating accountability in First Nations. Accountability and transparency in First Nations has to do with engaging the people. Currently, the people are not engaged, they are quite apathetic to the situation. What the people need are dramatic examples to shake them from their apathy. They need an incorruptible symbol representing their hopes and dreams.
The office of the Indian chief itself is conducive to corruption. It does not matter who is in there — there is a good chance the individual will be corrupted by the system. Having grown up feeling powerless to improve his or her condition, and then one day being given this great power, the individual will become corrupt. That is too often the case, much too often.
To me, the path to creating accountability and transparency is through education. I think the priority of the Senate should be to persuade the current government to lift the cap on post-secondary education funding. That is the only way we will have accountability and transparency, through educated youth. They will understand how to create accountability and transparency.
I heard one witness say that it is difficult to create accountability and transparency. In my opinion, being on a path to getting a degree, I do not think it would be so difficult at all. It is just the fact that they are not doing it.
The conditions on the reserve are such that I am now compelled to plot rebellion against the chiefs. I know that sounds crazy. I am not talking about violent revolution or anything like that — I do not condone violence. However, it is necessary to change, to establish a new order dictated by the people, not by Her Majesty's agents, and certainly not by the chiefs — rather, by the people.
Even though the chiefs themselves say that they have tried to consult with the people, it is because of the fact that I have often felt excluded that I am compelled to lead this revolution, basically, to establish a new order for the people.
The lady here is distributing copies. This is a constitution — to a student group. I believe that this student group is — I do not know how to say it. I am asking the Senate to ask the government to lift the cap on funding.
If you can get 10 good Anishinabe at the university to join my group, I can guarantee you that there will be accountability and transparency. If you can get me 20 good Anishinabe, I can guarantee you that we will be able to address the social problems of suicide, alcoholism, loss of language, loss of culture. If you could get me 30 good Anishinabe at the University of Winnipeg, I will give you a First Nation citizenry that is proud and responsible and ready to take on the challenge of being full members of the Commonwealth, as a nation, and to end the cycle of dependency once and for all. That is the thing that is really destroying First Nations people — the cycle of dependency that has been imposed upon us by treaties, by agents of Her Majesty.
I am a patriot of Canada and I am a patriot of the Commonwealth and I am one of Her Majesty's most loyal subjects. I cannot stand this corruption anymore, I cannot wait.
I would ask you to pass this paper around. It is a call to rebellion for youth, for us to become the masters of our lives and our destinies. This is the future.
Some day soon you will not be dealing with the chiefs anymore, you will be dealing with youth who identify themselves at "ogemak." That is all I have got to say.
The Chair: Well, you have presented your case, and you were right on time. That is a good sign.
Mr. Starr: There is a lot more I would like to say.
The Chair: Time is our biggest enemy.
Mr. Starr: Of course.
The Chair: Gerald McIvor.
Gerald McIvor, as an individual: I am a band member of Sandy Bay Ojibway Nation, signatory of Treaty One.
When you look at the uniform elections act, to me it is just another little step on pushing the First Nations of treaties into the municipal level of government. When you look at the current government's push for privatization of housing and land ownership, and when you look at the potential for taxation on the reserves, as the documents that were leaked to the Globe and Mail show — and they are marked "top secret." This is the Conservative government I am talking about here. Put all of those together — look at the overall picture — and what it is going to lead to is a municipal level of government.
The treaties are international in status, nation-to-nation agreements. When you are asking "what do you think will work for Indian Act elections," my solution is no Indian Act elections. In terms of this meeting — with all due respect to each one of you — this is a farce. You are not going to the people who will make the actual decision — the grassroots First Nation people. Those are the people you should hear from.
Prior to first contact, we had the best government structure in the world, the participatory democratic structure. Europeans came and imposed a representative democratic structure. I am sure you will all agree with me that it is a dismal failure. Look at every federal government we have ever had. Talk about lack of accountability, no recall mechanisms, nothing. Nevertheless, through the Indian Act, you are ready to impose something like this on us. I do not think so, because I will be the first one to lobby against it.
I am at odds with Ron Evans over this. He fired me for this, but that is a different story. I spoke out against this. Anything that threatens the future, the birthright, the treaty for my grandchildren and their children is what I speak out against. I speak from the heart. For as long as the sun shines, the grasses grow and the rivers flow, that is how long these rights are going to last in my view.
When Chief Shannacappo was talking there, Senator Dyck touched on a point about whether Indian Act section 74 elections were unconstitutional. I can elaborate further on that. The whole Indian Act is unconstitutional; it is illegal and immoral, and there is no room for it in the free world. It is a western version of apartheid — that is what it is. It is a restriction. Yes, maybe our chiefs want that, but you are asking the wrong people. You are not asking the community members; you are asking chiefs. That is like me asking my teenager, "Do you want an increase in your allowance?" Of course he is going to say yes. That is what these guys are.
As to an extension, a doubling of their term from two years to four years, go to any community and the majority of band members there will reply, "Look at the mess they create in two years; imagine the mess they will leave us in four." That is the mentality out there.
I talk to the grassroots. These chiefs talk amongst themselves. You are going to have 64 individuals determine the future of 100,000-plus First Nations citizens in this country — most of them are not even aware that this is going on. I know the chiefs. For most of them, their hearts are in the right place; they are trying to do the right thing. However, long term, it is not going to work. This is a one-size-fits-all approach that you are trying to impose here. RCAP recommended: Give them their self-government; let them exercise their self-determination, their inherent right to self- government. Let them exercise that.
The Harvard study has said that one vital component is missing to have true self-government — that is, independent autonomy. The Indian Act prevents us from exercising that independent autonomy, that in conjunction with the Natural Resource Transfer Agreement, NRTA, of 1930. You give us a share of the resources, we will create our own institutions, our own service-delivery systems, and you will have something that will be the envy of the world. You will never have unemployment in the First Nations — $11 billion a year, it is an industry of misery. That is what it is. It is in the government's best interest to keep us that way — dependent. If you gave us everything that we want, that we need for our people, who would have the highest unemployment rate in the free world? It would not be a First Nation of Canada or North America, or the United States for that matter.
Also, just for the record, if Canada is going to be sincere about helping First Nation citizens of this country rise from the peasantry they forced us into through their legislation — some United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples — drop your appeal of the McIvor decision and start negotiating a revenue-sharing agreement with the First Nations from the revenues generated from the sale of natural resources — which legally belong to us under international law. Then we can show you what we can do.
People will say, you are sick. Yes, we are sick — as a result of the residential schools that were imposed, in conjunction with government and church. Everybody is still concentrating on the First Nations. Let us help the First Nations heal, let us help the First Nations heal. A lot of elders have told me, "Survivors. . .what about the sickos that did this to us?" The church has admitted. What about Canada? What about that political mentality of "let us keep the First Nations dependent on us"?
Why not go to the nation-to-nation agreement, as the treaty states, for as long as the sun shines, the grasses grow and the waters flow. You know, the colonial system, the three-pronged system — you befriended us, you entered into agreements with us, then you neutralized us. Why do you not start undoing that? Let us, as a country, heal together, because we all have to live together. We cannot realistically put people back on their boats. Maybe Stephen Harper and George Bush, but that is another story. Do you see where I am going with this?
The Chair: I hear you. I do not disagree with you. The only thing is, this committee is not here to impose anything.
Mr. McIvor: Exactly.
The Chair: Do you understand that? This is not an imposition in any way, shape or form. We are here to listen. We have had an open mike session — and we would have held more, we would have allotted more time, had there been more response. We did what we could.
When we get into the questions and answers, I am going to have a question for you in regards to how we get to the grassroots. Listen — if you think we are not concerned about this, you are totally wrong, sir. We are concerned. We would like to get to the grassroots, but we just do not know how — at least I do not know how to do it; I cannot speak for the rest of them.
However, go ahead, sir, it is your turn.
Norman Traverse, as an individual: Thank you, senators, for this opportunity to express my view. I am from the Interlake area of Manitoba, Treaty Two First Nation.
I did not know anything about these meetings until I looked on the Internet. Then I decided I had better come here, even though I am not a representative legally of any organization. I appeal strongly. I still have my rights to be expressed as a First Nation member. I will try to be very brief.
With regard to elections, First Nations elections, Lake St. Martin is a victim of this whole process, Lake St. Martin First Nation.
I was a chief there, for six years. I lost out back in 2000. The result of that, the band is spiralling downward into deep recession, as I am sitting here today.
I want to see a better process in our elections because I have seen with open eyes what took place. What takes place in our elections every two years, I see corruption, I see bribery taking place, and mail-in ballots being bought and running around large in the community. It is causing a mentality on the young people when that happens.
Now, young people do not see the other side of this, what it is doing to them. I am concerned for my young people. I am a senior already, but I want to see an end to this. I want to see a process where my band members can go in and vote, cast a ballot, maybe for a term of four years, or whatever they come up with.
As a result of this discrepancy or whatever you want to call it, the bureaucracy, the region sees a weakness in the leadership and they take advantage of this.
As a result of this, we lost a school, we lost school teachers. There is a long list. There is a plot that is supposed to have been negotiated, or already should have been. There should have been a mitigation started on it already, and the issue is still at large.
The conditions are horrific environmentally in our community. They are dumping raw sewage, liquid sewage, in a former school lagoon, and there is bacteria spilling into the ditches and it ends up on the highways and our young people, our children, are exposed to it.
This all relates back to the election. I did what I could for my community.
Now the people, because of this rampant election buying running wild in the community, it has destabilized the community. Our community is not stable at all economic-wise or social-wise, as it continues the down spiral of suicides, anything. I would like to see stability in my community and let the people start healing.
I have seen elections where an individual member will carry in a plastic bag and head towards the electoral officer. Do you know what that is? That is mail-in ballots. One individual walked in with 90 ballots. Now, you cannot say that is mail-in, that is corruption.
I just want to leave it on that note, because I might say something that I do not want to say. I just want to express my views here, what is happening in my community. For the sake of the people, I want stability established back in my community.
I would like to see a direct connection to headquarters, because I do not have much faith and confidence in the regional office anymore because of what happened.
Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Traverse.
We have one other presenter, Mr. Cyril Keeper. The name sounds familiar. Are you not a long ways from home?
Cyril Keeper, as an individual: No, in fact I am right at home. Yes. I was a member of parliament during the previous century.
The Chair: That is fine. You are a citizen, First Nation citizen?
Mr. Keeper: No, in fact. You see, my grandmother came from Sagkeeng and she lost her status. My grandfather, we are talking on my father's side now, he was from Peguis, and he lost his status as well. So when my father went to Indian school, right, he got to grade four before they found out he did not have a number. I come from that community. I get my name from Joe Keeper, who has his status and his family, and the same family as Tina. It was translated from the Cree to the English in the 1850s. It is very similar to what happened to a chief in Saskatchewan, and he lived through the period when the buffalo were dying and tried to rescue his people. His name was translated into Star Blanket. So I come from this. I do not have the number.
The Chair: You have five minutes.
Mr. Keeper: I am going to come right to the point of your question. First of all, you are senators.
The Chair: We are.
Mr. Keeper: You have a Senate advantage, I would say — that is, that the Senate can take the time to listen to people, and to think and to consider what they are going to recommend. Just listening here, and you mentioned the grassroots, I would recommend that you hold these kind of hearings in a few communities. I think of Norway House, I think of Peguis, I think of Roseau, Island Lake. I have done this. I would like you to go into communities and hold meetings and hearings. I think, at that level, you would get a different picture of the world. I think by listening to people for a number of days in a number of communities, I think you would come to your own understanding and a deeper understanding of what you are dealing with.
If you talk to the community, you will get one picture; if you talk at the chief level, you will get another picture. If you talk at the organizational level, you will get another picture.
I just finished teaching a course at the University of Winnipeg on Manitoba Aboriginal politics. This question of fixed election days and whatnot came up in one of the essays that one of our students wrote. Well, you know, it depends on where the person is situated, organization, et cetera, as to what their attitudes are.
I think the advantage that you have as senators is that you can take the time to listen and to consider, and then when you say something you know it comes out of an understanding, at least your understanding, and a deeper understanding of what you have been looking at.
I would recommend to you, if you can possibly do that, I would recommend you do that, because you may come back with a different priority. You may still recommend on this question, but you may say, well, the priority is something else.
Let me give you an example. Three quarters of our people do not make it through high school. They are not going to go to university, they are not going to community college, they are not going to get into apprenticeships — you have to have high school for that. Nevertheless, that three quarters, a majority, the vast majority, have got to be a part of this economy. Maybe if you listen to people at the community level, you would come back with, what is the priority that those people feel? It may be what you have raised as a question, it may be something else.
I would recommend that you use your Senate advantage. And thank you very much for listening.
The Chair: My question is this: How do you do this without being seen to be impinging on the authority of the ruling group? Say I picked Roseau River — I happen to know the chief there personally. How do you do this, from your perspective, sir? You have been around. You say that we could go out?
Mr. Keeper: Yes.
The Chair: That is why we had this open mike session, and we advertised it. Rather than go on to reserve lands, we thought that we would keep it sort of neutral. These three gentlemen on your left have appeared here and we are grateful that they have — but I do not know how you get to the grassroots. The problems, sir, are as complex as the Indian Act.
Mr. Keeper: Can I respond to your question?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr. Keeper: First of all, I have done this in a number of different contexts, like gone into the communities and held hearings, basically. Now, for example, I was teaching a course on community development for CIER, the Centre for Indigenous Environmental Studies. We went into communities and we held meetings — a week in the community — and listened to people, listened. It is incredible how that changes your perspective.
I also did it in other formats. I went into Roseau when the community itself and councillors called meetings, and you listened and you hear these people.
You are obviously already meeting with the top leadership.
The Chair: No question about that.
Mr. Keeper: Yes. You are meeting here with leadership, and you are meeting here with some community people. They are to be congratulated for coming out. However, I think you can meet with all the different levels. If you actually go into a number of communities and take the time to listen, that will impact your perception, if you are there long enough for those people to talk. That is not being disrespectful of the leadership — it is just enhancing your understanding of what they are dealing with, what the leadership is dealing with.
The Chair: You know, I have done this, as an MP.
Mr. Keeper: Yes, of course you have.
The Chair: As you know, I was a former member of the House of Commons.
Mr. Keeper: I remember you.
The Chair: I have gone into my communities, my First Nations communities, when I represented Mission-Port Moody. That was one thing. I would go in and hold meetings to try to better understand the complexities that were out there. However, as a committee — this is quite a structure that goes in, if you go in with a full committee.
The presence of the committee alone is quite intimidating to a lot of people. You have a fellow that is going to university here, Mr. Starr, and Mr. McIvor obviously has been quite experienced in the politics and what have you of First Nations, and we have a former chief here.
Mr. Keeper: Could I respond to your intimidation question?
If you went into a community and you were there for a week and you listened to everybody that came forward, let me tell you, the people would not be intimidated. Once they start speaking and you are in their community, they would speak and they would tell you what they thought, those that were interested in coming out. The intimidation would wear off. It might be there for the first hour or two, but it would disappear.
Obviously, you have to go through certain protocols to get there. I just recommend it to you — because you are the Senate, you are the senators, and senators have the opportunity to give questions real thought and consideration. You do not have to worry about whether you are getting re-elected in six months or two months, whatever it is going to be, or a year. You can take your time, and I recommend that you do.
The Chair: Well, I hear you.
Mr. Starr: You want to know how to get to the grassroots — time it at election time. That is the only time they care. Prior to election, everyone is in election mode, even the people who are not running.
The Chair: That is like walking into an explosives factory. You get blown right off the face of the earth.
Mr. Starr: I am sure you will handle yourself well.
The Chair: Look, this is a complex situation, and there is no question that there is nothing better that we would like. However, we are restricted as well.
Mr. Keeper, can you imagine how costly that would be? I will bet you there are very few First Nations in this country that are absolutely similar.
I was born here as a Metis, and now live on the West Coast where I deal with the Haida, and then I am in Nova Scotia dealing with the Mi'kmaq. There is such a difference in the needs and the overall structures of these people that it is scary. It is scary from the point of view that it is really complex.
Mr. Keeper: Senator, you understand that I am challenging you to —
The Chair: I hear you.
Mr. Keeper: — and I think you would do a good job in doing that. Obviously, you have to come to your own opinions about these things, but I think it would be a way to enrich your understanding. Yes, it would cost lots of money, but you would be spending it in First Nations communities.
The Chair: That is true — creating a bit of an economy.
Senator Sibbeston: All of the witnesses are so well spoken. It is good to hear people. It is not a lack of education — everybody is well educated and well spoken.
Mr. Starr, it is good to have these ideals and hopes and aspirations. I would encourage you to continue to pursue them. Idealism mixed with practical politics can go a long way.
When I was young, I grew up in residential schools, but I always knew that it was not right. There was something wrong with it. It is not normal life. White people do not send their kids to residential school. I knew that there was something wrong. So I grew up with a sense that, okay, there were things not being done right.
I saw my community where my grandmother and others were not treated very well by the white people there. I grew up with a determination that some day I would do something about it. That is what drove me on in our community. When I reached grade nine, and I think there was one person that had reached grade nine, and grade 10, nobody had ever reached and gone beyond grade 10, but I did. The thing that drove me on was some day I would help people, some day I would. I would make sure that things are fair. This is what has driven me throughout my life.
I eventually got into politics. Politics is the quickest way you can make changes. I am a lawyer, too, and I worked as a lawyer, but it is a slow process, you work within the system. Politics is the quickest way to make changes.
I encourage anybody young like you that has these feelings — you are right. It is a matter of just pursuing them, getting enough education. Education is power, power, power, and you get that by being educated. The system we live in — there are a lot of smart people. To be able to function and make your way in this society, you have to be educated. There is no other way. So get educated, get power, and you have the basic motivation to do something about it.
I encourage you and wish you well in your life. The things that you see, corruption and so forth, they are there. It is not a fantasy, it is not you imagining things, you see it. So it is a challenge of change. Get in there and change the system. That is the only thing that I can say.
With respect to what Mr. McIvor says, you obviously had been in a system, you have seen things. Your comments are because of that. All of the things that you say are right. I see Indian Affairs as a misery, an industry of misery. I often think about the people over the ages, the number of white people that have benefited on the backs of Indian people — there have been many. As a whole industry, there is a whole department in Ottawa that is there. They have their jobs just because there are Indians in our country, the whole Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, thousands and thousands of white people that work and have jobs because of Indians.
That is the truth and that is a reality. Why should they want to change? I mean, why should they work so that they work themselves out of a job? It is human nature to keep their jobs.
That is a political reality. Just the things that you say. You talk about the Harvard project and the importance of autonomy and the hope that our country can share with you all of the resources, and that you would become independent. All these things are pretty amazing, pretty good ideals to have.
As a country, Canadians are challenged. Generally, Canadians do not want to see Aboriginal people living the way they are. They want to improve it. They spend $9 billion or more every year trying to. Everybody in Canada, all of the non-Native people, most of the white people, have a guilty conscience in terms of the way Aboriginal people were dealt with.
It is a blight on them internationally. When they are critical of Africa, not to mention many other countries, people say to them, "What about your First Nations? What about the poverty, and what about relegating First Nations people to second-class citizenship?" and so forth. So for Canada, there is a bit of a shame, there is a bit of guilt. In part, I think that is why they just keep spending money. They keep pouring money, thinking, in part, that that will help their situation.
Canadians do not know how to improve the situation. I really feel that. I think most Canadians are sympathetic, but they do not know how. They think the way to do it is to just keep putting money into the First Nations — that that should solve it — but it is more than that.
In part, I think the First Nations themselves have got to do it. As you say, white people can never do it for you, or for us; you have to do it yourself. At some point in our lives, if as First Nations we recognize that we are the ones who can get us out of this situation, out of this poverty and so forth, then I think we would go a long way in accomplishing that.
Hence, it is a challenge to Canadians, but it is also a challenge to First Nations, all the leaders that are there and young people like you, that it is not useless.
It is like praying. I oftentimes wonder whether my prayers mean anything, whether there is a God who listens up there and catches my little prayer. Does it mean anything, or am I just wasting my time? You are here today and probably feeling that way. Is what I say of any importance? Are we going to listen? Are we going to be able to influence government so that things can get better?
I have to believe that there is hope. You have to have hope. You have to believe that in Canada it is possible to make changes and improve the situation, but it takes a lot of determination and work by all, by government, but also by people like you.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Sibbeston: Amen.
The Chair: Amen.
Senator Dyck: I think, at least from our first three speakers, I noted a concern about corruption in elections. I am wondering if you are not confident that, with upcoming changes, those practices will be contained or eliminated in some way? If not, would you have some recommendations as to how the election system could be improved so that those practices would be eliminated or reduced as much as possible?
Mr. McIvor: There have to be proper checks and balances, as in anything. There have to be accountability mechanisms that kick in, a safety net for the people to fall back on. The question is, who is going to create the checks and balances? Is it going to be Indian Affairs? Is it going to be Canada? Is it going to be the chiefs? Is it going to be the people? Is it going to be one uniform common code? The Supreme Court has said "unique and distinct peoples" — that is how we are defined in Canada. Okay, each community is unique and distinct.
My community is 60 miles from Long Plain and there are a lot of differences there already. It is not just ideals, it is also the political climate that shapes your community. So how are you going to reach that happy medium? Where is there a redress system, an appeal system, a removal from office system? What punishments are there for, say infringement of these barriers? Where is the money going to come from?
We have the human resources to do it ourselves. The fiscal resources are a big question mark. If revenue sharing would come in, to start working toward an independent autonomy where we can have own checks and balances, we can do it. We have very smart people right across this land, doctors, lawyers, senators, political scientists. Every walk, every professional area, we have First Nations people in there. There are more and more coming each year. Therefore, we have the human resources to be able to create our own systems, our own governance, with the proper checks and balances of accountability.
Then, again, define accountability. I look at my definition of accountability — I am accountable to my wife and family. That is totally different, though. I am talking about political accountability.
Chief and council are accountable to INAC. People have no say in it. They can go crying to INAC. INAC does whatever they want to. The minister can eliminate you as a chief with the stroke of a pen.
Now, is that going to be there? Is the intervention policy going to be there? There are so many questions that need to be answered before you can start developing a model to that effect. However, you have to have it with the consent of the people. If you are going to sit here and listen to chiefs right across Canada, of course you are going to get, oh yes, we are going to endorse it. You know what, if I was a chief, I would be sitting here telling you, yes, go for it, let us do it. After all, you are doubling my term and you are guaranteeing me employment for another two years. Talk to the people, they can do it.
Mr. Starr: You want to know if we have confidence that changes can occur — well, one of the witnesses mentioned that there is no opposition on the reserves. What I am trying to do here is create an opposition. The University of Winnipeg Aboriginal Student Council has a plan. We have a series of simple plans for language preservation, suicide prevention, to ensure that we do have good leaders. Even if my little rebellion fails, I do not really care. All I want to see is my people ascend from their despair.
I am creating this opposition for them, I am challenging them. It will not necessarily be changes to legislation that will create the improvements, it will be engaging the people. The people will challenge the leaders. That is the highest priority I think, and education, two highest priorities.
Mr. Traverse: I would like this process to go right into the grassroots level, so the people could be educated a little bit and understand what is happening. We have to deal with other issues, besides introducing this thing about elections. You have legislation to think about, section 35, and the list goes on. I feel very strongly that we have to start from the grassroots level.
Sure, the chiefs are elected, but the real mandate comes from the grassroots people to make this a reality. Thank you.
The Chair: Well, that is right. The chiefs are elected, but they are "de-elected" too, so they end up being part of the grassroots.
We are listening carefully to what you are saying. I think everybody's intervention, one is as important as the next. I see your interventions as important as those that we received from the chiefs. I am sure the committee feels that way as well.
Our biggest enemy is time, but we have to make a difference. If a significant difference is going to come — I think eventually — and I am not talking myself here as an individual, but the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples — the committee has an excellent chance of initiating the changes that you feel are required.
We know there is a litany of complexities and problems out there. However, every giant journey begins with a single step. Our recommendation, I think, will reflect what the four of you have actually said, that the grassroots have to be considered in the recommendation process so that they are not eliminated and it does not become a top-down process.
Having said that, I want to thank you for appearing before us, and I look forward to working with you in the future. If you have any submissions that you want to put forward, put them forward to our committee clerk and we will certainly take them seriously in our deliberations and as we compile a recommendation.
Remember, we are not going to impose anything, we are merely going to make a recommendation. Hopefully, it will be taken seriously — they have been in the past. So there is great hope there.
Thank you.
Again, the senators participating in this meeting are as follows: Senator Hubley from P.E.I.; Senator Lang from the Yukon; Senator Sibbeston from the Northwest Territories — and as he told you, he spent 11 years in a residential school, so he knows what he is talking about; Senator Dyck, who is an Aboriginal person, from Saskatchewan; Senator Robert Peterson, from Saskatchewan; Senator Lovelace Nicholas is an Aboriginal person from New Brunswick; and I happen to be a Metis from Manitoba. The white horses on the highway, I lived right around there.
(The committee adjourned.)