Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Aboriginal Peoples
Issue 19 - Evidence - October 27, 2009
OTTAWA, Tuesday, October 27, 2009
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples met this day at 9:30 a.m. to study on the federal government's constitutional, treaty, political and legal responsibilities to First Nations, Inuit and Metis peoples, and 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: Good morning. I would like to welcome all honourable senators, members of the public and viewers across the country who are watching these proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples on CPAC or possibly the World Wide Web. I am Senator Gerry St. Germain from British Columbia. I have the honour of chairing this committee.
The mandate of this committee is to examine legislation and matters relating to 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 Indian Act elections system, including the two-year term of office for chiefs and council as currently prescribed by the act. We, as a committee, are seeking the views of First Nations' leaders, Aboriginal organization, First Nations people as well as experts in this area about whether changes should be made and what those changes should be to the Indian Act elections regime in order to provide better governance for First Nations, including strengthening political accountability of the leadership to First Nations citizens.
For our viewing audience, it is important to note that 252 Indian bands, roughly 40 per cent of the Indian bands in Canada, hold elections in accordance with the Indian Act. This study on elections processes focuses on those First Nations whose elections are held under the Indian Act. Other Indian bands select their leaders by way of custom or as a result of their self-government agreements.
[Translation]
Before we hear from our witnesses, allow me to introduce the committee members present.
[English]
We have Deputy Chair Senator Nick Sibbeston from the Northwest Territories; Senator Patrick Brazeau from Quebec; Senator Sandra Lovelace Nicholas from New Brunswick; Senator Elizabeth Hubley from Prince Edward Island; Senator Bob Peterson from Saskatchewan; Senator Dennis Patterson from Nunavut; Senator Nancy Greene Raine from British Columbia; and Senator Carolyn Stewart Olsen from New Brunswick.
Allow me to introduce our first witnesses. On behalf the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nation Chiefs Secretariat, APC, we welcome its co-chairs, Chief Lawrence Paul and Chief Noah Augustine. The committee originally hoped to travel to New Brunswick this month to obtain testimony there. Unfortunately, the dates we had available conflicted with meetings of the Assembly of New Brunswick Chiefs and of the Union of New Brunswick Indians rendering the vast majority of our proposed witnesses unavailable. In fact, we received only one confirmation from the 14 First Nations organizations contacted. This made it impossible for us to schedule hearings for those dates. The committee determined that the most efficient way to complete the study on time was to invite the Atlantic Policy Congress and the Union of New Brunswick Indians to Ottawa. We are very happy that these organizations have taken the time to be here with us today.
Established in 1995, the APC is the policy, research and advocacy organization for the 33 Mi'kmaq, Maliseet and Passamaquoddy First Nation communities in Eastern Canada. Ten chiefs are elected to sit as members of the APC secretariat board of directors, which consists of co-chairs from New Brunswick and Nova Scotia along with eight other board members.
We have a somewhat unique situation here. Chief Augustine is wearing two hats today. He is also appearing as the representative of our second witness organization, the Union of New Brunswick Indians, of which he is president. Chief Augustine, I would ask that if there are any issues on which the views of the two organizations that you represent diverge, please identify on whose behalf you are speaking.
We look forward to hearing from you gentlemen with an Atlantic perspective on this important issue. Again, we apologize for the mix up in us not going to you because that was our intention. We are very thankful you have come to us.
I will call on the first speaker, Chief Lawrence Paul. We have met before. Welcome to the committee. I have had the honour and pleasure of being on your lands. Your accomplishments and good works are to be recognized. Please proceed with your presentation.
Chief Lawrence Paul, Co-Chair, Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nation Chiefs Secretariat: Good morning honourable senators. On behalf the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nation Chiefs Secretariat, APC, and my fellow co-chair, Chief Noah Augustine, I wish to express our appreciation for the opportunity to appear before the members of this committee on this very important governance issue.
However, I would like to note for the record that our organization expressed our concerns and disappointment about the recent decision of the committee to cancel the only two Atlantic hearing dates in New Brunswick. We strongly believe all First Nations leaders and citizens of our region would have greatly appreciated the opportunity to have their voices heard by this committee on how they believe the Indian Act election system needs to change to strengthen governance in their communities. We ask that you will include our region in any future sessions or discussions.
The APC is a non-profit organization federally incorporated in 1995 that acts as the collective voice of 38 Mi'kmaq, Maliseet, Passamaquoddy and Inuit First Nations chiefs living in their traditional territories now known as Atlantic Canada, the Gaspé region in Quebec and Southeastern Maine, U.S.A. Our organization's mandate is to research, analyze and develop alternatives to federal policies that affect its members' First Nations.
The Indian Act election system, within which the majority of our First Nation members still operate, has severely impacted the manner in which our societies traditionally governed themselves. It has displaced our inherent authority as leaders and has eroded our traditions, culture and belief systems. It does not reflect our needs and aspirations. It has also not kept pace with principles of modern and accountable governments.
It is common opinion that the two-year term of office for First Nation councils that hold their elections under the Indian Act system limits their ability to govern the First Nation government and act in the best interests of all of our citizens over the long term. The short time frame hinders the establishment of solid business investments and relationships, long-term planning and implementation, ongoing strong accountability and an acceptable governance regime that works for the long-term interests of all First Nation citizens.
The two-year term of office in the existing Indian Act election regime has the following serious limits and impacts: elected chiefs and councils, especially those that are new, do not have sufficient time or opportunity to learn their roles and responsibilities in the context in which they function; inadequate time for chiefs and councils to develop strategic community plans to implement actions and to assess performance against objectives; frequent elections impede the stability and consistency essential to good governance and are costly and extremely disruptive to program service delivery and business; difficulty in attracting outside business or other investments resulting in the loss of timely economic opportunities and loss of member confidence in their leaders; no provisions that balance the interests of on- reserve and off-reserve members; and a loose nomination process and few stipulations surrounding candidacy for Indian Act elections.
I have been chief after this term for 26 years. I have seen the animosity when going to your people every two years. It takes six months before the election is called and the people get into election mode. It takes six months afterwards to get over the election; and you really only have one year to govern. With the ability of First Nations now going into free enterprise and economic development projects, we need longer terms in order to reach our objectives.
The APC has a committee that is working on developing a model that we hope will be acceptable to our citizens, the Mi'kmaq, the Passamaquoddy and the Maliseet, in the Atlantic region. We know that we will have difficulty with our people in the area of the four-year term versus a two-year term or maybe even a three-year term. We know that we have to have a referendum and contact our people to get their blessing on which way they want to choose. Some First Nations have had a referendum and some want the two-year term while some want the four-year term. I guess it is up to us leaders, as chiefs and councils, to get the measures across to our people as to why we have to have four-year terms for the benefit of the First Nation problems.
I thank the senators here today for taking the time to hear our presentations. It is essential for senators to bring our measures forward to the Government of Canada in this crucial time when we are developing a new election system. I would like to have the Senate's approval, confidence and support. As I have always said since I became chief, economic development and education are the lifelines of our people now and in the future. I have been promoting this for years. I have said that we need the cooperation of the federal, provincial and municipal governments to reach our objectives in the field of economic development and free enterprise.
We have a good record in post-secondary education. Our people, especially young people, are realizing that they must have a good education either in the college system or the blue-collar trades. Many of our younger people now want a better standard of living and are getting a good education and certificates so that they can go forward to the general Canadian public and, at some time, reach their independence. The biggest objective of chief and council is to break the yoke of dependency that our people have. It will take a while yet. I remember when Ellen Fairclough was Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development under then Prime Minister John Diefenbaker. I was a band councillor at the time, and she asked me if I thought that in 20 years Native people will be self-sufficient. I told her that before we became self-sufficient, it would be many years and that we had to put many things in place to reach that objective.
I am very proud of Native people and their efforts in the field of free enterprise, economic development and education. Some day in the future, we will take our rightful place in Canadian society. To achieve that, we must have the cooperation of the federal, provincial and municipal governments. Some day we will reach that plateau. Again, I thank senators for hearing my presentation on behalf of the APC.
Chief Noah Augustine, Co-Chair, Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nation Chiefs Secretariat: Good morning, committee members. I come to you today from New Brunswick's oldest village, Metepenagiag, on the banks the Miramichi River in Northern New Brunswick. My community has lived on the banks of the Miramichi for the past 3,000 years. I am the grandson of the late Joe Mike Augustine and the great grandson of John Augustine, who were both elected chiefs at Metepenagiag. Like they did, I have travelled here to Ottawa to voice concerns on behalf of my people. I come not just representing my community but also as co-chair of the Atlantic Policy Congress and president of the Union of New Brunswick Indians. The message I carry here today has two parts: One is my personal view based on my experience as chief for the past five years; and the second is the view of my fellow chiefs from New Brunswick as well as chiefs from the Atlantic region.
I will begin with my personal views. As I mentioned, I have been chief for five years, and I am gearing up for my fourth election. During that time, I have seen my community divided three times. I have seen families torn apart. I have seen brother fight brother, fathers disown sons and families devastated by suicide. The committee needs to understand that this steady disruption of community life has far greater consequences than just unstable governments and diminished hopes of economic development. It is literally a matter of life and death.
I mentioned suicide because this is a fact; and I will explain. Similar to many First Nations, my community is small to average, with about 600 people. Everyone knows everyone. All of our families are connected either by marriage, lifelong friendship or just growing up with each other. With the band office being the main and sometimes only source of employment, a constant struggle takes place for power among people who are closely connected. With elections every two years, there is a constant division of families, and emotions tend to run deep. When you are talking about people's livelihoods, matters around the election are of the highest importance. This is why we have such high voter turnouts on the reserve at about 95 per cent. The tendency is for people to strike out at each other and do things to hurt one another for the most celebrated positions of power — chief and council. After an election, a community might begin to heal, but that healing is never complete because, before you know it, another election is around the corner.
Elections every two years cause emotions to run high in an Aboriginal community. As a former suicide intervention trainer in many First Nations across Canada, I can tell you that a community that is volatile, highly charged, emotional and under a constant strain due to continuous division of the community is one with high drug dependency and high suicidal behaviours. This has to stop.
The problem is serious because even though my people do not want drug dependency and high suicidal behaviours, they cannot escape them because the Indian Act has fostered a culture of dependency so strong that it tears the greatest strength from the strongest of men. My people have suffered so long under a blanket of oppression spread over us by the Indian Act that they do not have the strength to crawl out from under it. Even if they had the option to switch from a two-year term to a four-year term, the majority of my community, whom I have surveyed, wish to maintain two-year election terms because it is what they know.
They have been programmed over the decades, like self-destructive robots, to hurt each other and themselves, time and time again, every two years. This may sound dramatic to you, but if you were to spend two months living on my reserve just before an election, you might come to understand. If you could see the worry in our elders' eyes, hear a mother cry for a divided family or see the conditioning of a young child to avoid her cousin because of politics, you would see how very real it is.
We cannot go without elections, for we are a democratic people, but to have them every two years conditions our community in a very negative way. Not too many other places in the world have electoral systems such as ours on the reserve. Canadians would never put up with this, and I know they do not put up with this in New Brunswick, but it seems to be okay for us Indians.
You should hear how the younger, educated people of my community — the lucky ones who get away — talk about their communities. There is no pride. Once they realize there is a different way of life out there, they often do not want to come back, and it is those educated ones who we need so desperately in our communities — RCMP officers, doctors, lawyers, pharmacists, business owners. Because the reserve system has been so crippled by the Indian Act and because there are so many deterrents to the healthy development of our communities, they do not want to come back home and raise children in this environment. As a leader of a First Nations community, this troubles me. I often wonder about my own children. As parents, we all want the best for our kids.
I am personally of the strong opinion that the greatest, most fundamental flaw we have in developing a healthy community is the two-year election cycle. It brings about instability of governance, and you cannot develop an economy with an unstable government. It scares off investors. I have seen many projects put on hold due to an election. One reason our communities experience such high debt loads is that they are constantly in campaign mode. It has a negative impact on long-term community planning because First Nations politicians cannot see past two years to the next election. That is not their fault. I do not blame my people for being like this. This is how we do it because this is how we were told to do it.
I get very upset when I think about the Indian Act. Our electoral system is symptomatic of a bigger problem with this archaic piece of legislation; the Indian Act is the problem. With everything chiefs and councils do to try to develop their communities, they are stopped in their tracks by the Indian Act, from the management and leasing of lands, to additions to reserves, to land-claim referendums, to market-based housing, to converting tangible assets into active capital; the list goes on.
The fact that it is necessary for me to come to Ottawa to tell you that the Indian Act elections are not good for community development frustrates me. This is a no brainer. I met with the current Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and several before him, and shared the same simple view on this. I was calling for a simple amendment to the Indian Act whereby the term for the election would be changed from two years to four years, without all this hoopla.
I always feared that governments of the day just want to demonstrate that they are doing something without actually doing something about it; save it for the next minister or the next government. I acknowledge that other concerns exist surrounding the Indian Act elections, but the urgency to change the length of term is far greater than spending years at the risk and whim of changing governments tinkering with something that may never be realized.
I understand that hearing me express these concerns and frustrations is just part of your job as Senate committee members on Aboriginal affairs. However, to me, this is my life, my community and my community's future. As a chief, I do not get to go home and relax. I get to go home and live the chaos. I get to see the misery and feel the pain, while the parliamentary system continues to tinker with us like a broken toy, only to be picked up now and again at its pleasure. These are my views. Please forgive me if you feel offended by my comments, for I do not mean to offend; I just mean to be honest and share with you how disconnected we feel with Canada at times like this. This is the 21st century, and this is Canada, but you would not know it if you lived on a reserve.
On behalf of my colleagues in the political organizations I represent, I should inform you of the work to date regarding the Indian Act election reforms. The chiefs in the Atlantic have formed a regional task force and technical committee to begin to research, examine and lead discussions on Indian Act reform in the Atlantic region. Our proposed legislative reforms to the federal government can be an interim step before self-government agreements are negotiated and would not apply to First Nations that have already adopted and implemented community election custom codes.
Out of 35 Mi'kmaq and Maliseet First Nations in our region, 27 First Nations are under the electoral system, while 8 First Nations hold elections pursuant to their custom election codes. With over 77 per cent of our First Nations under the Indian Act system, which is the highest in Canada, legislative reforms would have a significant, immediate impact on the stability and governance of First Nations in our region. Some of the subject matters that we are examining here are the lengthening of the term of office from two to four years, striking a balance between on-reserve and off-reserve, appointments of electoral officers, elector notification, nominations, qualifications of candidates, mail- in ballots, voting procedures, offences and penalties, appeals and alternative appeal mechanisms, and a recall mechanism. Engaged thus far have been our elected leadership, technical and legal advisers and band membership through an extensive engagement process.
Thus far, some of the concerns expressed include a desire among many to move to a four-year term. It must be noted that still a great number of people, including some chiefs, prefer the two-year election term; they believe a vote every two years demonstrates ongoing support. A better appeal process is needed, including an independent appeal tribunal. Some have suggested considering online voting. A concern exists about mail-in ballots and the potential tampering with these ballots. Penalties for offences that undermine the new election process are needed. Communities themselves wish to set methods determining off-reserve interests. Many suggest shorter nomination periods, nomination declarations and formal acceptance procedures. Some have suggested an opt-in clause, as some First Nations may reserve the right not to participate.
We even have a Facebook site — and I am no big fan of Facebook — specifically for group discussions on this matter. As of yesterday, 467 members have joined this group. Rich and diverse discussion takes place on this site about how First Nations can take into consideration the needs of all our members and balance the needs of on-reserve and off-reserve members. There is also a general consensus that the mail-in ballot system is an administrative nightmare and too easily corrupted and that we need to develop our own system that works for First Nations. It was also suggested that a conflict-of-interest policy be made for the selection of electoral officers.
A prominent concern that has been raised in our research relates to the perception that a longer term of office will reduce opportunities for leadership to be accountable to community members. Some suggest that political accountability is the purpose behind two-year election terms. Another suggestion is that we need to educate First Nations people in the community about the positive impacts of extending the term of office and the negative impacts of the current term, i.e., election costs, instability and lack of long-term planning. Another prominent concern registered is a requirement for a recall mechanism should the community feel the leadership needs to be replaced.
According to the results of a recent survey completed at our annual general assembly by the APC chiefs and councillors, 83 per cent clearly stated they are open to changing the term from two to four years, 72 per cent want to see requirements of a written application and identification to obtain a mail-in ballot, 97 per cent want clearly defined election offences, with attached penalties, that would enable prosecution if individuals break the law, and 86 per cent want an independent tribunal to handle the Indian Act band elections appeals instead of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, INAC, with the minister making the final decision.
At the conclusion of this phase of our work, in January 2010, we are optimistic there will be support for a new flexible, optional legislative model for changing the Indian Act election system for the Atlantic and Quebec Mi'kmaq and Maliseet First Nation governments, allowing the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to begin a legislative drafting process that supports our approach. We shall continue this work, and we will share our final report as soon as it is completed and approved by our chiefs.
This concludes our presentation. On behalf of the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nation Chiefs and the Union of New Brunswick Indians, we would be happy to answer any questions you might have of either myself or my colleague Chief Lawrence Paul.
The Chair: Thank you, chief. I have a list of questioners, but I will take the liberty of asking the first question.
We have been joined by Senator Sharon Carstairs from Manitoba. She is originally from Nova Scotia.
In both your opinions, what can the federal government do to help achieve your objectives in what you are attempting to do through your task force? Is there anything specific that we could recommend to government?
Chiefs, I am proud to say that this committee now operates in a non-partisan fashion with the main objective of serving the constituency that we have been asked to serve, namely, the Aboriginal peoples of Canada. There is no set order of questions. Whoever wants to ask, may ask.
We would like your guidance in this. It is important that you tell us exactly what you need, not a whole smorgasbord but possibly some focused issues.
Mr. Augustine: Thank you for the question. I have always proposed a simple bill that will amend the Indian Act to change election terms from two years to two four years. That is it; there is no big hoopla; simply change the act.
If we open it up, and you do the consultation process and start addressing all the other issues, the concern is that we will introduce a new set of issues going back to the bill for the First Nations governance act in 2003. You will recall what happened there. The chiefs were not supportive of that because of all the new ideas being introduced.
Simply change the term from two years to four years with the smallest bill possible.
The Chair: Do you mean change it to four years or up to four years?
Mr. Augustine: Up to four years.
The Chair: Give First Nations the option of moving to three or four years. Is that correct?
Mr. Augustine: Yes. Initially, the position of the Atlantic chiefs was to change it from two years to four years. My concern was that the government of the day would throw monies at our political organizations to explore the issue. Exploring the issue defers the issue and does not deal with it. Change the length of term of office in the act from two years to four years, recognizing that we need to deal with other issues that surround the Indian Act elections.
However, if you include all these other issues, you have to bring this to a vote in the communities. I have surveyed my community and almost 80 per cent are in favour of two-year elections. I understand where they are coming from. When you talk about this culture of dependency, you cannot expect people who have lived under the system for decades not to think that way. They want the two-year elections because they are conditioned that way. It is campaign mode all the time. This is the only time that First Nations people feel they have a true and equal voice across the community. They want these election campaigns every two years because they have been conditioned that way, but it is detrimental to the development of our communities.
We simply wanted to change the act. However, we are now engaged in this process where we have to explore all these other issues. This is why we are here today.
Senator Sibbeston: I want to thank the chiefs for their presentation today. I appreciate, in particular, Chief Augustine's forthright and informative presentation. It makes me realize that sometimes, as a government, we simply have to do it. It is a situation where, as you say, it is a no-brainer.
I understand the initial provision of a two-year term in the Indian Act. It was like an introduction of a formal electoral system being introduced by government to Aboriginal people across the country. While it may have served its purpose through time, people have outgrown it. As you say, some people are still in this dependent mode and are used to this two year term and want it.
I agree that it is a situation where the government simply ought to do it. The senate ought to be forceful in our recommendation to the government. With respect to the election term, we should only make the small amendment that you suggest so that bands can have elections with up to four-year terms. I hope we can recommend that.
Once you make those changes, many other factors come into play, such as appeal provisions and so forth. We are leaning toward an independent body that will deal with that. The present mode of having INAC do the appeal is not very functional. It is very cumbersome and a lengthy process. We need an arm's length body that deals with appeals.
I am happy to see Chief Lawrence Paul here. Our committee had a chance to go to your area a number of years ago. I personally went to see you. You were very hospitable in showing me the reserve, where people live and the enterprises the band has undertaken. It was very impressive to see the business development that you and your band are undertaking. Thank you for coming and making your presentation. We will try to respond to what you are saying today in a very real way.
The Chair: I remember the fish operation you have. I hope it is operating well Chief Paul.
Mr. Paul: Yes, we have small issues to correct such as the filter the system, but that is achievable.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Thank you for your presentation. I appreciate it. I am very new at this, and I apologize.
I understand, Chief Augustine, what you are saying about your own people not wanting change. How would they feel if they had the four-year term? I hear two different things: We are saying up to four years, but you were quite clear that it should be four years.
Ottawa has lived in a culture of elections every two years recently. Therefore, I understand what you mean about constant campaigning. You get very tired after a while of campaigning all the time and not being able to put your mind to what is happening in the country.
Would it sell the four-year term if you had the recall mechanism to reassure people? Along with your amendment, would you consider including recall as a way of convincing people who are a little unsure?
Mr. Augustine: Initially, I was not in favour of having a recall mechanism. I thought it might be taken advantage of and used too often. However, in the spirit of compromise and knowing that a great deal of trepidation exists, I have reconsidered. The change to the terms is not supported 100 per cent. I mentioned that I surveyed my community and almost 80 per cent are in favour of two-year elections. If we introduced a recall mechanism, those people who have their doubts might agree to give it a chance. If that is what it will take to change this, I am prepared to support the recall mechanism.
Senator Stewart Olsen: I think, from a communication perspective, that you might have a better chance to sell this to your people. Chief Paul, are you in agreement with that?
Mr. Paul: We discussed the recall mechanism and feel that it might be added later. The main issue now is to get the support of our people to move from a two-year term to a four-year term.
Some parts of the Indian Act legislation will be entwined, I would imagine, in the APC's model. One section would remain: If you are convicted of an indictable offence, you must immediately step down as chief or council. That would be added to our model. At this time, Mr. Chair, I have to apologize for leaving out page 6 of my presentation.
The Chair: That was the most important page, was it not? Do you wish to tell us about page 6?
Mr. Paul: Yes.
The Chair: You are our guest, so go ahead.
Mr. Paul: Beyond the two-year term limit, the Indian Act election system presents other challenges, such as no specific band support funding for conducting elections every two years. The ineffective, unclear and lengthy appeal process involving INAC, which can often take 12 to 18 months of a 24-month term to resolve, does not meet the principles of natural justice regarding fairness and impartiality. We have a mail-in ballot system that is open to abuse and no offences or penalties in place for violations or breaches of election laws. Currently, it seems that appeals, not in the Atlantic but across Canada, are based on the mail-in ballot process because it provides so much room for abuse.
I know that the appeal of one of our members is coming in based on mail-in ballots. I think that will be a problem in the future. In some way or another, we have to tighten up the rules and regulations on mail-in ballots to ensure that it does not provide an opening for fraud. More appeals will be sent in by various First Nations across Canada if the laws and regulations are not tightened up for off-reserve ballots.
That was the part of my presentation that I missed, Mr. Chair.
Senator Stewart Olsen: When you complete this report in 2010 from the Atlantic membership, will you take it to your people and to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development? What is the process once the report is completed? Would you require the approval of the rest of the country to make changes? Is it a case of one-size-fits-all, or is it a case of proceeding with something voted for by the Atlantic councils?
Mr. Paul: I talked to Minister Strahl. Manitoba started the discussions on that. The minister felt that if we were to go forward and make changes to the election process in the Indian Act, we could do it in the Atlantic with the Mi'kmaq and the Maliseet. We mentioned the Passamaquoddy because they are part of the treaties, even though they live across from the 38th parallel in the United States and have no home base in Canada at this time.
We have suggested amendments to the Indian Act that we believe would be beneficial to our people. For instance, in the existing process, we post the nominations for candidates, wait 30 days and then select the candidates. Then, we wait 42 days after that for the election. It is a long time to be in election mode, and it causes much disruption of the work of chief and council. As my co-chair said, it pits brother against brother, sister against sister and cousin against cousin because Native people take the election process very seriously. We will probably put a mechanism in place in our model that pertains to the nominations for chief and council. In a small First Nation, 60 or 70 people can be running for council seats and 6 to 8 people running for the office of chief. Nominating that many people for the office of council or chief makes us look ridiculous. In Millbrook First Nation, we tried to set a penalty so that anyone running for chief had to pay $250 if they did not get 50 per cent of the vote; it was $100 for councillors. There was a backlash to that idea: Some people would be able to afford it, but many people on social benefits could not spare the money.
Somehow or other, we have to tighten up that section as well. Anyone running for the office of council or chief will have to put up a certain amount of money in order to curtail the number of people. When a small First Nation has 60 people running for council, it does not look as though we are playing with a full deck; and so we have to change that. I have to come right to the point and say what I think.
The Chair: That has never been a weakness in your character, Chief Paul, from what I understand since the first time I met you.
Mr. Augustine: Once the report is finalized, it will be brought back to the APC for their review. As well, it will be forwarded to INAC and the minister. We will also make the findings of the study available on our website.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Welcome, Chief Paul and Chief Augustine. I am disappointed because I do not see a Maliseet woman chief sitting with you today. Is your study funded by the federal government?
Mr. Paul: Yes, APC is funded by the federal government.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: What are your views on common-day elections?
Mr. Paul: All I can say is that we need change. I will not elaborate any more on that.
Mr. Augustine: On the question of the common-day election, we discussed that at great length at the all-chief and all-council meeting. Many people are in favour of having one common-day election. It would serve to promote awareness of the Aboriginal community. I believe that the national chief presented here when he was a regional chief of British Columbia. He talked about having a common-day election in sync with the national chief's election. There is a general amount of support for it. The only concern seems to be the logistics of whether we have enough electoral officers to service the region. In New Brunswick alone, we have 15 First Nations and more than 35 in the Atlantic. That would be a great deal of activity in one day. If it were practical and doable, then by all means, we would support it.
Senator Brazeau: Thank you for being with us this morning.
I, too, will share my support for Chief Paul. In my previous capacity, I have been in Millbrook quite often, and certainly the economic development focus that you have put into it has grown your community. Chief Augustine, we had the pleasure of meeting several times in the past and had some interesting discussions. I will be the first to admit that I am certainly not offended by your comments. Actually, you made my day. It is time that more chiefs say that it is time to get out of the Indian Act, but how do we do that in an accountable, open and transparent manner? Many of the frustrations that you have outlined are problems that, as a First Nations person, I have listened to for 34 years. The issue is how to get to the solutions and start working through the solutions so that we can move beyond the status quo.
Many of the things that you were talking about sounded similar to the First Nations governance act, and I will have to respectfully disagree with the way you portrayed that bill in terms of new ideas. The First Nations governance act was trying to bring about more accountability from the chiefs to their citizens, both political and financial. It would have offered the communities themselves the possibility and the opportunity to develop their own leadership election goals; therefore, setting their terms of office, when the elections would take place and how they would take place, and allow the community to have a say in that process. The same thing applies with accountability codes. It was certainly a step toward what it was intended to be, which was the implementation of real self-government. You know, as I do, what happened to that piece of legislation. Chiefs stood up and opposed it, saying that there was no consultation. Personally, I will disagree with that. There was some consultation and an opportunity for consultation, but the chiefs rejected that very opportunity.
I hope I will not offend you in outlining some of my frustrations as a First Nations person. When the government tries to act, whether Liberal or Conservative, and the chiefs do not like what is being proposed, then the finger-pointing exercise begins, saying that there is a lack of consultation or the government of the day is trying to impose something on the First Nations people. When the government does not act, and you indicated earlier wanting to increase the terms of office up to four years, it is very difficult for that to happen.
Having said that, I would like to know, as a parliamentarian, how we and the Government of Canada can help you in truly working toward getting out of the Indian Act. I know the system. I see the organizations: the Assembly of First Nations, the provincial and regional organizations, the Union of New Brunswick Indians, the Atlantic Policy Congress, and you are both respected chiefs of your own First Nations. Different layers here are all being funded by the Government of Canada. I would like to know, as different entities, how you are working together amongst yourselves and communities to set a process in place to present to the Government of Canada so that you can get out of the Indian Act and look toward a more sustainable and less dependant future. That is my frustration. I need to hear solutions from the chiefs; because if we do not do it, the finger-pointing exercise begins.
Mr. Augustine: I do recall our conversations, and we were making progress because previously you and I did not agree on a few areas. I am glad that we are coming to agreement on some points here, and I thank you for the question.
With respect to the governance act, we all know there is a little more to it than just the issue of accountability, but let me focus on that issue of accountability. First Nations have no problem with accountability. One of the concerns we have with the way the government was introducing these measures of accountability was through the reporting requirements, even though the Auditor General's report said that First Nations are just being reported to death with respect to paperwork. This is a serious consideration.
Senator Brazeau: If I could interrupt you there, I acknowledge the report of the Auditor General, but it is a different thing when we are talking about accountability to the Government of Canada vis-à-vis accountability from the First Nations leadership to their people. The Auditor General did not address that.
Mr. Augustine: Right. On the issue of accountability, for me, as chief of Metepenagiag, accountability is probably the most critical thing. My community is fortunate at this point in time. We are on the verge of generating millions of dollars of own-source revenues. We are fortunate in New Brunswick that we have a tax agreement with the provincial government that allows us to collect 95 per cent of the provincial sales tax revenue on any economic activity generated on First Nations lands. In conjunction with our land claims process in Metepenagiag, and with the legal obligation on behalf of Canada, we are purchasing new lands in the New Brunswick region with the legal obligation to convert to Indian reserve lands. With controlling our own property tax, we have the tools in our tool kit now. Metepenagiag is one community that will move forward and generate millions of dollars of revenue. If we do that without any accountability measures, we are setting up for disaster. I can see controversy after controversy down the road. I for one, as chief of that community, will not spend the last six or seven years of my life working on a foundation that will generate millions of dollars to my community and not have accountability.
I am taking it to a new level in that I want to set up a separate structure, aside from the chief and council, that will consist of board members, perhaps ex officio, from government members, private sector and nearby municipalities because it is crucial that we have accountability for every single dollar generated from own-source revenue. With the federal dollars that are coming in, we have to report and are accountable for that to the federal government. However, when we generate own-source revenues — and Chief Lawrence can attest to this — we are not accountable to the federal government for that, but we are accountable to the people.
In order for First Nations to move forward, to crawl out from this blanket or culture of dependency — and I know you understand that — we need to generate those own-source revenues so that we can reinvest back into our community, into long-term, full-time jobs, and in housing scenarios, market-based housing. We do not have that on- reserve. The Indian Act blocks every avenue for that.
On the issue of accountability, you and I will agree strongly on this because I am a big supporter of and strong believer in accountability measures, but what they have now proposed is not there. When you are talking about generating own-source revenues, that accountability is not there. Even if we look at amending the Indian Act, still no accountability exists for those own-source revenues. I am a strong believer in accountability.
I do not want to get into the First Nations governance act because that is a different debate, and the chiefs clearly expressed their views on that. However, we have a new day and new opportunity here. We are asking the Senate for their support to maybe push government and move them in the right direction. This issue has been ignored for decades. I am hoping this is not just a flavour of the day or the month and that this issue will fall by the wayside. If an election is called here next spring, all of a sudden it is a forgotten issue, and then I am back at the table here five or ten years down the road talking about the same thing.
The Chair: That is a good point.
Senator Hubley: Welcome to both of you this morning, and thank you for your presentations.
I find the disruptiveness that elections cause within your communities troubling, as I am sure you do. It has almost become a culture of mistrust. I will have you perhaps explain the situation to me more clearly. I am wondering, within the joint technical working group, if you, as chiefs, plan to do anything to have the acceptance of any of these changes presented positively to your councils and to your bands so that that situation will perhaps be lessened or, in fact, would no longer be there to that extent.
Mr. Augustine: I am not sure what your question is.
Senator Hubley: In most of the presentations, we have heard that the two-year term is very disruptive. It pits brother against brother and family against family.
If the nomination process were strengthened, would that eliminate the problem, or is it entrenched now that every two years this will come up in every election? There must be a mechanism that will lessen that and allow people to have more confidence in what an election is and what it hopes to do. As chiefs, do you have a role to play?
Mr. Augustine: Our role would be to assist in the education of our community members about the benefits of extending that election term. Show me anywhere in Canada that has elections every two years and someone who argues in favour of elections every two years.
I mentioned that it is a no-brainer because I cannot see anyone — I do not care what party you are from — standing up in the House of Commons to say that two-year election terms are a good thing for First Nations. It is absolutely disruptive and divisive. It divides our communities every two years. As Chief Paul was saying, just as we start to get back together and begin to heal, another election is around the corner.
I had an election in June 2008. My next election is next June. My community is moving heavily into election mode. They look forward to this. Remember that every job in the majority of Native communities is controlled through the chief and council — every house, benefit and welfare. Everything is controlled by the chief and council.
Therefore, you have a community of people who aspire for one thing, to be chief or council because they want to have a say. They want to represent their family and to share in those benefits. When you have limited resources such as we do in First Nations — underfunded as we are — you have people fighting over scraps on the table because there is not enough for everyone. The struggle for power is constant. Once they get into power, they have to reward their families and supporters, and another group is left out. That is very unfortunate.
Elections every two years in those conditions bring constant chaos. My election is next summer, but I sense election fever in my community now.
Senator Hubley: That is interesting.
About striking a balance in the composition of the band council between on- and off-reserve members, do you have any plans for how that might happen? What problems is it posing currently?
Mr. Paul: I think our band members, regardless of where they live, should have a say in the election of their chief and council. Although they do not come under the federal statute called the Indian Act, they are still very interested in what happens in their First Nation.
I am glad, as a chief, that they have the right to vote for their representatives as chief and council. Off-reserve members depend on chief and council for other things such as post-secondary education and prescription drugs. The Indian Act confines what we can do.
I think it is the democratic way to let our off-reserve people vote in elections. I have no problem with that as a chief.
Mr. Chair, I would like to respond to Senator Brazeau's question.
The Chair: I am sorry that I did not allow you to answer at the time. Please go ahead.
Mr. Paul: You suggested getting rid of the Indian Act. Earlier in my presentation, I said that the biggest problem that we have to break is the vicious cycle of dependency. If the Indian Act was abolished now, it would create total chaos for our people. I have been a chief for 26 years. We never had a seminar or any delegations come to our First Nation telling our people how to budget their money. That has never been done. It is time that we started educating our people how to budget their dollars. That is been outstanding for many years.
If we abolish the Indian Act at this time with nothing to take its place, many First Nations depend on the contributions from the federal government from the financial section of the federal statute called the Indian Act. It would be total chaos without those dollars.
Currently, Aboriginal people are one of the minorities who are very susceptible to H1N1. We will probably have loss of life from H1N1 as it affects Aboriginal people. I think it will affect us heavily.
Until we reach the plateau where we can be financially independent, I have often said that we cannot go to self- government without any financial base. If we have no dollars, how will we have self-government? The federal government could not operate without money and neither could the provincial or municipal governments. The time is not here yet.
However, with the cooperation of the federal, provincial and municipal governments, we will reach that plateau some time in the future. We will be financially independent. As I said earlier, education and economic development is the lifeline of our people. We have small toeholds in some communities now. We are going forward in free enterprise and economic development.
I often say when I address a board of trade or chamber of commerce, the decision has been made to enter free enterprise and economic development and compete for the almighty dollar the same as everyone else. We are here to stay; we will not go away, so get used to us. This is our lifeline that we have to create. I am a firm believer in that.
I intend no disrespect to you, senator, but I do not think the time is right yet to abolish the Indian Act.
Senator Brazeau: With respect to off-reserve voting members, being from Nova Scotia and New Brunswick respectively, what is the level of the working relationship between First Nations and the councils representing off- reserve status Indians? In New Brunswick, it is the New Brunswick Aboriginal Peoples Council and, in Nova Scotia, the Native Council of Nova Scotia?
Mr. Paul: We are kind of curtailed by a federal statute called the Indian Act. As I mentioned earlier, we can provide post-secondary education and prescription drugs. For other things such as housing and social assistance, you have to be a resident of a First Nation. The Indian Act stops us from giving them social assistance when they live off-reserve. I do not know why since they are members of our band, but we cannot. It is a problem.
Much of my family have intermarried and do not live on-reserve. They sometimes ask when we are doing something for band members on the First Nation, why we cannot do it for them living away from the First Nation. The only way to accomplish that is to amend the Indian Act so that we can have the off-reserve band members in that circle to help them. I would like to help them. Some are quite poor and are having a hard time.
I looked at everything carefully. In Nova Scotia, we now have the Made-in-Nova Scotia Process, referred to as KMK. When Bob Nault was Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, we signed a memorandum of understanding to go forward on our covenant chain of treaties to get the benefits from them. From that, they appointed a federal negotiator and a provincial negotiator, and the Mi'kmaqs got our negotiator.
We are going forward with issues. In the Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, the Supreme Court of Canada told the Government of Canada, the provincial government and us that before we reported to the court system, we had to sit down and negotiate. They gave the federal and provincial governments a warning. They said that if they did not negotiate in good faith and sincerity with the Aboriginal people, then they will make the decisions for them, decisions that they probably would not like.
We must give negotiations a chance before we go back to the Supreme Court, because the Supreme Court told us to negotiate first. If we come to an impasse, then we can go back to court. Therefore, that is what we are doing in Nova Scotia at this time. We call it the Made-in-Nova Scotia Process. We have to negotiate with the provincial government with respect to land base; we have to negotiate with both the provincial and the federal governments on a share of the natural resources such as offshore, coal and lumber because we must have a financial base to go into self-government. This is what we are trying to achieve now. Whether or not we will be successful with the provincial, federal and municipal governments remains to be seen. It seems to be progressing quite nicely so far. However, when it comes down to the hard tacks in any degree, it may be a different story.
I am all for getting rid of the Indian Act in the future, when the time is right. However, the time is not right now. It would create tremendous hardship for our people if those contributions from the federal government were curtailed and no longer came to the First Nations. As you know, the Mi'kmaq people and the Maliseet were almost wiped out. They almost went the same way as the carrier pigeon and the whooping crane and the Native people in Newfoundland who were completely erased — I think they were called the Beothuk. At that time, Joseph Howe said that something had to be done for the Native peoples or they would be gone, so they put in place the federal statute called the Indian Act. They created dependency. The hardest job that chief and council have now is to break that dependency cycle.
We are going forward now, as I said. Many bands have small starts in the field of economic development, but we have reached a plateau. When we have enough dollars coming in to be financially independent, then that is the time for us to go into self-government because we will have the dollars to back us up.
I thank you very much, senator, for your question. I had to answer it.
Mr. Augustine: I would like to respond to both Senator Brazeau and Senator Hubley.
About two or three weeks ago, we were witnesses before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance. As we were about to make our presentation, there were a few other interests at the table as well. To my left, making a presentation prior to me, were representatives of the Native council from Prince Edward Island. I listened to them and thought that this was unfortunate. When they made their presentation, they talked about finance and funding. Essentially, they were proposing that the federal government take the existing dollars for the First Nations and redirect them to the Native councils.
I felt it was unfortunate because it struck me as a divide and conquer strategy: Throw out a few dollars and let them fight over it. It is similar to throwing out French fries in the parking lot of a McDonald's and watching the seagulls go at them. I respect their efforts in terms of the interest they represent. However, as a chief in my community — and, in particular, since the Corbiere v. Canada decision — I have off-reserve members who vote for me. When they want something, they let me know. They call me up. They could be in Arizona, in a different country; or out in Calgary. I represent these people from both on- and off-reserve who vote for me.
Talking about the off-reserve people, it does not concern me that my off-reserve people vote because these are my educated people in many cases. I want them to have a say in their community. Some are far removed from the community. Other people have concerns about band members who live off-reserve. Some of them have never been on the reserve in their lives, yet they maintain a band membership. In the community, the concerns are that these people should not have voting privileges when it comes to issues such as land claims, per capita distribution of own-source revenues, and so on. Band members are concerned about the off-reserve members having a say. It is similar to a senator representing Nova Scotia while living in Manitoba. How would Nova Scotians feel if you were still voting in the elections in Nova Scotia when you are living in a different province? They probably would not take too kindly to that because you are not living in that area. It is much the same on-reserve.
For elections, we get a voters' list, a list of names. I see people on that list that I have neither heard of nor met in my life. Nevertheless, a mail-in ballot comes from somewhere, and they have voting privileges. I cannot campaign for their vote because we are not allowed to contact them. I do not even know who they are, but they have a say in my community. This is a hot-topic issue. I am not opposed to people from my off-reserve membership having a say in my community because, as I said, they are most often the educated ones who have left the community.
The Chair: Do you receive federal funding for the off-reserve band members?
Mr. Paul: We do not receive funding for off-reserve band members due to the Indian Act, but they let us include them in post-secondary education. If they do not live on the First Nation, they go to the public school system. When they go to college, then their post-secondary education is paid for; we receive funds to send them to college or to community college for the blue-collar trades. We cannot give them social assistance. Health Canada allows the off- reserve band members to have access to paid prescription drugs within their mandate, but those are the only two benefits. We cannot provide housing and social assistance to them because we are restricted by the Indian Act to funding that comes in for the First Nations' on-reserve people. Our hands are tied on that.
Senator Raine: Thank you very much for being here. I am enjoying learning more about your neck of the woods, so to speak.
It is difficult to be at the end of the questioners because many of the questions have already been asked. I will go back to the simple fix that we might be looking at. We have been hearing witnesses from all across Canada. We have been leaning toward changing the present two-year term to a term of up to four years. However, I think you are saying that we should make it four years because if we change it to two to four years, it will just open up many more arguments or likely may not change. We were saying up to four years at the discretion of the First Nation. I would like to hear from you on that.
Mr. Augustine: We want a term of four years.
Senator Raine: Can we make sure that we have heard that correctly?
The Chair: Yes, he wants four years flat.
Senator Raine: In introducing legislative amendments to the Indian Act, particularly on governance issues, that is a slippery slope because we will be accused of not consulting with every single person affected. Is there a strategy that we should take to gain the support of First Nations leaders on this issue so that if we make this recommendation, we are supported in it?
Mr. Augustine: I should point out that Minister Strahl was very clear that this would not be an initiative led by him or the federal government. It was one that he wanted to see being led by the chiefs themselves, by the First Nations. The recent history of this is that the Manitoba chiefs came out strongly in favour of it and passed a resolution amongst their chiefs in favour of lengthening the terms. Then the Atlantic region came forward, and we secured a resolution among all the chiefs, by consensus of all the chiefs, in favour of lengthening the terms. The chiefs of the Assembly of First Nations will be meeting in December for a special chiefs' assembly, and I believe at that time, it will be tabled for all the chiefs in the assembly to pass a resolution in favour of this, if one does not exist already. It is clear to me that all the chiefs in Canada are very much in favour of this.
The debate lies not with the chiefs, with the exception of a few people who believe two-year elections are fine. The debate lies more in the community, where we are dealing with a people who have been cultured under dependency. When I talk about land claims in my community, I have band members ask, ``When is the land claim, and how much is it?'' That is all they are concerned about. I used to become frustrated over that, but I cannot blame that individual for thinking that way. People have been raised without opportunity, without full-time jobs, raised poor, and if they think that a land claim would represent instant gratification, instant wealth, I cannot blame them for feeling and thinking that way. I can blame the federal government for culturing my people with dependency under the Indian Act because that is clearly what it has done for my people.
As I mentioned, 80 per cent of my community were not in favour of extending the length of the term. Therefore, you will have a debate in the community. They preferred a two-year election term. I cannot blame them for that. It is my job as a leader to go into my community and facilitate the discussions. I had a community meeting less than a month ago, and I see a flicker of light there now. There is hope. It rejuvenates me and excites me that my community is open to the bigger picture now. That goes a long way to say that by going back to our communities and facilitating the community and bringing awareness forward, that they can make the right decision.
Initially, when I went about this, when I got involved from the Atlantic region, it was because I did not believe my people would support changing the election terms themselves. I said that the only way to do this is by going to the federal government and asking Parliament to introduce a bill to amend the Indian Act from a two-year term to a four- year term. That was the simplest way; it was a no-brainer. I could not see any party arguing against that. Now that we are engaged in this process — and I suspect it will be a long one — I now think that I will have to go back to my community rather than entertain this process.
I can see elections down the road; I can see the house closing; and if Canada has a change of government, then all those bills that were introduced fall by the wayside again. It is a long process. We waited decades upon decades, but I think I will make better progress going back to my community. If necessary, I will have a referendum in my community for a custom election code, and that will resolve my community's concerns.
For the Atlantic, it is hard to say.
Mr. Paul: I like your comment, senator. As a chief, I was elected 13 times, but I do not run to the people every time I blow my nose. They give me a mandate to govern for two years. The federal government does not run to the Canadian people every time they want to put legislation in place, and neither do the provincial governments or the municipal governments. They elected us for a term of two years in a democratic way, with nominations and so on, and they gave us the authority to govern. I am a chief who believes that if my people give me the authority to govern, I will govern. If I do not govern right, then they will turf me out. They did not do it for 13 elections, so I must be doing something right.
On these Indian Act amendments, we will open up a kettle of worms, I would say. We talked about it in my council, and we believe that a four-year term is a good benefit for our First Nation, so we are prepared to go forward as a chief and council decision. If it is a decision that the band members do not like, they can turf us out, but I do not think they will. It is time to make decisive decisions, and the onus is on the chief and council to make those decisions for the betterment of their people. If we want a government, we must act like a government. If we want to go into self- government in the future, then we have to govern. We have our mandate to govern, so we must do it, and never mind the consequences of our decision. That is something we have to face. I know changing to four-year terms will cause much controversy.
If I talk to Minister Strahl, I will tell him maybe he should leave it up to the governments of the First Nations, not taking it right from the people, but I feel it would better our First Nation communities. I would even accept a three- year term, to sort of ease it in. Maybe not four years, maybe three years as a beginning; tack a year on, and then maybe escalate it to four years. After we get used to the three-year term and see it working that way, then change it to four years.
I am a great believer in if you are elected to govern, then you must govern. If the people do not like the way you govern, they have the opportunity to turf you out in the next election.
Senator Carstairs: I must say that I have had a great deal of difficulty with this debate since the very beginning. I have no difficulty going from two- to four-year terms, and I have no difficulty with a recall procedure provided it is done within very real and strict limits. You do not want a recall procedure that can go on for months; you want a very strict regime. Also, you should have funding for the election process and have an Aboriginal electoral commission because otherwise there will always be the question of accountability. I do not think the electoral commission should end up providing for another 50, 60, 100, 200 bureaucrats in INAC, so that causes me grave concerns.
Perhaps my overwhelming concern — and I would like you both to address this — is that this is just another way of delaying real reform. This is just such a very tiny part of the Indian Act. We are spending so much time on it. Is this just a smoke and mirrors game that is happening here? I would like your comments on that.
Mr. Augustine: I appreciate those comments. As I mentioned in my presentation, the Indian Act elections are not the problem here. They are symptomatic of a much larger issue, and that is the Indian Act itself. I talked about many different examples of the Indian Act that provide deterrence in my community.
Currently, as a chief in my community, I am basically an administrator of INAC. I am similar to an INAC agent. My job is to manage the poverty on my reserve. I take those federal dollars that are coming in and try to manage that in my community, as underfunded as we are. That is no way for any community to live.
How do we get away from that? I recognize all these roadblocks in front of me that are put there by the Indian Act, and I recognize that in order to get away from managing this poverty, we need to move to a place where bands are generating their own-source revenues with accountable structures and putting those investments back into the community. When we look down the road, with the demographics of Canada and the Atlantic region, where we are from, we cannot depend on the federal and provincial treasuries to sustain our governments. There will be more pressure, as we all know, in terms of the demographics as we see them today.
How do we get from here to there? If we do not take the people with us, we will never get there. A transformation of mentality is required in my community. It is a transformation of mentality amongst the grassroots level of people, as well as the federal government and Canadian citizens. That is one of the biggest challenges we now face.
Is this smoke and mirrors? To me, it is like the flavour of the day. If it is not the Indian Act elections, it is something else. I know you met in 2006 on the specific claims policy, and I have some issues with that. There is always an issue under this umbrella.
As Chief Paul pointed out, how do we get away from the Indian Act? Do we employ self-governance right now? I agree with him that many First Nations are not ready for self-government.
When I was younger, when I first got into this business, I used to think self-government was the way to go. I did not know what I was thinking. We cannot have responsible government without a tax foundation, without securing our own-source revenues, without accountability, and without business planning and reinvestment strategies. Those are the tools we need to bring into First Nations communities. We need to fill their tool kits so these communities are ready to move on and generate those own-source revenues into their communities in a responsible manner.
I am frustrated by coming here to report to a Senate committee and telling you that the Indian Act is not a good thing, that the Indian Act elections are bad for my community. I cannot believe we are spending all this time dealing with something to which, at the end of the day, we all know the answer. Will one member of this committee walk away from this process and say that, no, two years are the best thing for them?
We are talking about the oldest piece of legislation in Canada. It is no wonder we feel that we are not equal in this society when Canada moves on with all their developments and legislative amendments and leaves us back in the 19th century. We need changes, but unfortunately our hands are tied with the Indian Act. We need partnerships with the federal government and with people such as yourselves because you people are in a position of influence that can help us.
We are stuck under the Indian Act. The blanket of oppression is heavy, and it has weighed on my communities for many years. Just 60 years ago, our First Nations did not have the right to vote. Just 40 years ago, if anyone went to university, they lost their Indian status. Not even 20 years ago, they were closing the doors to the residential schools. Here we are today. Some communities are moving ahead despite all the deterrents that were placed on them, and some First Nations are doing well.
A transformation of mentality must happen at the grassroots level. At the governing level, First Nations need to be equipped with the tools of governance so that we can work to bring new developments to our community. Is this smoke and mirrors? Perhaps it is. Is it the flavour of the day? I do not know. I simply want this change from two years to four years so that I can get on with my business in my community.
Senator Peterson: Thank you for your presentations.
You mentioned a simple amendment to the Indian Act in order to change it. Is there not a distinct possibility that that would attract a section-35 challenge, which could again delay this process forever? Possibly the custom route is the way to go, and then you are in charge of your own destiny in a sense. You will still have issues such as possible assistance at the financial end and electoral oversight. Would that possibly get things moving quicker?
Mr. Augustine: Could you repeat the question?
Senator Peterson: I am saying that rather than make an amendment to the Indian Act, which could attract a section- 35 challenge, we could go directly to the custom code.
Mr. Augustine: If it were that easy, that would be great, and we would not be here today. However, the reason we are here today asking for federal legislative amendments is because we do not believe that people are at the point right now where they would accept changing elections from every two years to every four years.
I am coming to the realization now that I will be better off working in the community to educate and change those opinions because this process will probably take forever. The only reason we are coming here for federal legislative amendments is because the government has the power to do that. Bills are introduced all the time in the House of Commons. We are asking for the smallest bill that you have ever passed in Canada, changing elections from every two years to every four years, and that is it; we will deal with it the rest of it.
Senator Peterson: Do you not think that would attract a section-35 challenge? Do you think it is that easy, that we just change it from two to four years, end of story, and we will carry on?
Mr. Augustine: Who will challenge it? Who will challenge the notion that we should maintain two-year elections, that we should not change from every two years to every four years?
Senator Peterson: You said that many of your own people do not want a change from every two years to every four years.
Mr. Augustine: In my community because we are dealing with a culture of dependency. I am not expecting that members of Parliament are suffering from the same culture of dependency that my First Nations people suffer from.
Senator Peterson: In your presentation, you mentioned that education and economic development are the main platforms that will move First Nations people to look after their own affairs.
We have heard in previous presentations that when First Nations people signed the treaties, they said that they will share the land, and the treaty just relates to the top six inches, not what is underneath. Has there been any debate or discussion as to what the treaties said and meant in order to have access to those resources, or do we now have to rely on our new duty to consult legislation in order for First Nations to gain access to resources or some share of the resources?
Mr. Paul: Due to our covenant chain of treaties in Atlantic Canada between the Mi'kmaq, the Maliseet and the Passamaquoddy, the true intent of these treaties, if accepted by the federal and provincial governments, would not pose a problem.
However, as you know, we had to go to the Supreme Court of Canada — the R. v. Marshall decision of September 1999 — to have the right to make a moderate living by fishing.
If the treaties were accepted by the government as they were written by our ancestors, we would have no problem.
You talk about a land base. We know that the Nisga'a Nation and one other band have land bases bigger than Nova Scotia. We are looking for a land base in Nova Scotia, through the Made-in-Nova-Scotia Process, dealing with the federal and provincial governments. We will never get a land base like the Nisga'a got. They have diamond mines up there, and they have a source of income for self-government; we have not.
We looked at custom elections before. Custom elections still have to be sanctioned by INAC. They give their blessings on it. It is not true democracy. If we put together our custom elections according to what we want to put in there, and if it does not meet the criteria of INAC, they will amend it or change it. The band wonders what the use is of going to custom elections when it still has to be approved by the department.
The Indian Act was put together by the Government of Canada at that time. No consultation took place with the Native people. If we were to ask the government to extend the term from two years to four years, it would be the federal government's fiduciary obligation to us to change it to four years, based on what we have been saying here today and why. If every time the Government of Canada passed legislation it had to go to the people, they would be spinning their tires the same as we are doing. It is the same for provincial and municipal governments. Every time we blow our nose, we cannot run to the people and ask whether we are doing the right thing. They elected us to make decisions. I asked my people shortly after we were elected what they wanted us to do. They told me that we are supposed to know what to do; that is why they elected us.
It is a hard road to walk when you are chief and council. You are always worried about funding. In Nova Scotia, we have a share of revenue from the video lottery terminals, VLTs, which God sent to Nova Scotia First Nations to give us another source of income for economic development. Millbrook and Membertou First Nations are the leaders in economic development in Nova Scotia, but if we did not have those extra dollars, we would not be where we are today.
We have agreements with private enterprise. For example, Millbrook First Nation has an agreement with General Dynamics Canada for the new Cyclone helicopter. I was not happy with the military change of name because ``Sky Hawk'' was an excellent name for the helicopter. I told the military brass that I was not happy with it. Being a former member of the Canadian army and navy, I did not think it was a good change. They had the Black Hawk, and the name Sky Hawk was too similar, so they named it the Cyclone. I told them about the Sea Kings, which fell out of the air, and now they have the Cyclone, another flying disaster. I tried to make my point to the military, but they are difficult to talk to and stubborn.
The onus is on the federal government and, when I have the opportunity, I will tell Minister Strahl that it is up to the Government of Canada. He has heard the requests of the chiefs of Manitoba, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland, the Gaspé region and Quebec to change the election from two years to four years. The onus is on the federal government to take that step. If I were a senator, I would make that recommendation to the federal government.
Mr. Augustine: I would like to respond to the senator's question about treaties because it is important. The treaties of which you speak are referenced as the Peace and Friendship Treaties. Most of them were signed around 1760-1761. The Mi'kmaq people on the Miramichi River were the last to sign in 1779. A British war ship flying the colours of France, HMS Viper, was sailing up the Miramichi during the American Revolution when the Mi'kmaqs were strong allies with the French. Many people do not know this history, which is a shame because this is the real history and why we are in some of today's messes. That war ship came up the Miramichi River, and 16 Mi'kmaqs went out because they thought it was a French ship. They took them hostage and sent them to Quebec. A superintendent at the time called for them to come back, and they brought them to Halifax; but not all of them returned. We lost some people there.
It was at that point in the conflict between the French and the English during the American Revolution, with the Mi'kmaq and the Maliseet allied with the French, that the Peace and Friendship Treaties were signed. Treaties are not signed between domestic governments but are signed between nations. They called for the lands and waters to hunt and fish, but the problem is that these treaties were never respected and encroachments occurred. Currently, I have several land claims under way in my community because of the issue of settlement.
I went through the education system in New Brunswick and learned to hide my head in shame behind a textbook because I learned about the Indians — the savages who scalped the settlers. That is a shame in itself because people are not properly educated on these treaties and the proper history of Canada.
Now that we have had these encroachments, why is Metepenagiag getting new lands? It is because we launched a series of land claims. We have no political clout to influence our politicians because we are such a minority across the country. We were forced to go to the courts, and that is why our treaties from 1761 are coming alive. It is a shame that we have to take them before the courts so that we can develop our economy. Times are changing. The common denominator between Canada, First Nations and the provinces is the economy. With the downturn in the economy, it is important that we form partnerships and work together so that we can have mutual gains.
Your question was specific to lands. Some First Nations do not have the same opportunity as others. They do not have land claims actively engaged with the federal government. That is a concern because some of these communities were set up on reserves that are remote and not part of a thriving economy. Without options for new lands for economic development, it is questionable how these communities will generate revenues. I am glad that you raised the question of treaties because it is an important consideration in all of this.
The Chair: You said that you established a task force to study the elections process thoroughly. You emphasized accountability and the ability for recall. You are asking the government to arbitrarily make a leadership decision and change election terms to four years from two years. Without making any other changes to the Indian Act, how do you sell this to the people when you are dealing with such a small factor — the term of office — and nothing else is being done? That is why in Manitoba, Ron Evans, Grand Chief of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, is trying to set up an electoral commission to make the change so that the entire package will be as one. I believe that you are working on the same idea.
Why not go to custom codes and simply demand the four-year terms without the accountability and recall factors, et cetera, that Chief Augustine mentioned in terms of the APC's task force established on the East Coast.
Mr. Augustine: We initially approached the government on the simple point of changing election terms from two years to four years. We thought it was doable. Once you open the issue, more issues arise and it becomes more complicated. It was in the interest of time that we wanted a quick amendment while working on these other important issues. The task force was set up subsequent to engaging with INAC to explore the issue. Since the task force was set up, all the issues the minister wanted to have addressed are being addressed.
I want to ensure that I separate the two-year-term from the four-year-term. That request was made at a time that we thought it was doable and reasonable, and we did not think anyone would argue against it. However, it will not be a simple amendment because now that we are engaged in the discussion, all these other issues are surfacing. We established the task force to oversee the process. We established a technical committee to feed into that task force. We set up the Facebook page so that the grassroots people can participate in those discussions; we are collecting all those ideas and comments.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: You said that APC has a task force. My concern is the mail-in system. Can you suggest how that could be improved to prevent fraudulent activity?
Mr. Augustine: Many discussions are taking place on the Facebook site. I do not know what suggestions are being made, but they are being collected. A number of ideas are being put forward. However, we are definitely concerned about tampering with mail-in ballots. The potential is for appeal after appeal. I think everyone recognizes the potential for tampering.
All the ideas will be collected and discussed. The total findings will be forwarded to the minister.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: I asked that because it is important for Natives who live off-reserve. I was one once, and at that time, I was not able to vote. I believe it is important that people living off — I hate to say the word — ``reserve'' take part in these elections.
Senator Raine: I am not sure who said that every job, house, and benefit is controlled by the chief and council, which gives them so much power. I believe that for good governance you need to separate band council staff from the political process. Is this currently done, or are employees of the band council subject to change when the leadership changes?
Mr. Paul: That is a question that we ask ourselves — the conflict of interest. I dealt with INAC on that for several years. We believe that the onus is on INAC to put conflict of interest guidelines in place because they fund us. It is not up to the chief and council to do that. That would be political suicide. We are politicians too, and we look at both ends. If I were funding the Senate and wanted you to do something for me and you did not do it, I would withhold your funding until you did it.
The onus is on the INAC to put that in place under the transfer agreements. Conflict of interest should be entwined in the long-term transfer agreements that we have with the department. No chief and council wants to get into that situation, for various reasons.
It is not because we are becoming rich. Millbrook First Nation runs a very tight ship. We want to vouch for every dollar that is spent. No one puts their fingers into the pie.
We have bylaws to deal with unsightly premises, excessive noise, dog control and zoning. Our community looks like a suburb of the town of Truro. No discrimination exists. We have a bit of problem with lack of education. However, our kids have sleepovers with kids from downtown, and those kids sleep over at our First Nation. We have a good rapport with them.
If you are always looking for discrimination, you are sure to find it. If you take every word that is said as discrimination, you will be continuously fighting against discrimination.
The Senate recommendations will go a long way toward helping us to change financial stability. The Native people need the support of an organization such as the Senate so that we can take our rightful place in Canadian society.
I want to thank the chair and all senators for hearing our presentations. I am pleased to be here talking to you.
The Chair: We thank you both for your forthright and candid presentations and responses to our questions. There is light at the end of the tunnel. We will deliberate seriously on your recommendations to try to come up with something acceptable to First Nations people. The government should no longer impose on First Nations people. They should do things for the First Nations people and not to them.
I had the opportunity, last Thursday, of being with the Osoyoos Indian Band and Chief Clarence Louie. I believe that most senators here were invited to the opening of his conference centre in Osoyoos, B.C. This is the epitome of success, leadership and good governance. Chief Louie is subjected to election every two years and has, like Chief Paul, been elected for the last 20 years. The situation there is similar to yours on the East Coast. They are working toward self-sufficiency.
I thank you again. I thank the senators for the good questions they asked. We look forward to working with you in the future.
If you think of anything that you feel the committee should know before we report, please contact the clerk of the committee.
Before we adjourn, senators, I would like to remind you of the upcoming the visit of the First Nations Education Steering Committee in Ottawa. I hope you have had an opportunity to read the email sent by our very capable clerk. Some of us met with this organization while in Vancouver. We listened to their innovative ideas and initiatives about education. I encourage members who are in Ottawa next week to take advantage of the chance to meet with the First Nations Education Steering Committee to hear more about the pressing concerns with respect to Aboriginal education.
There being no other questions or comments from senators, the meeting is adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)