Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Aboriginal Peoples
Issue 8 - Evidence - Meeting of May 26, 2009 - Morning
WINNIPEG, Tuesday, May 26, 2009
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples met this day at 9:02 a.m. to study 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 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 today's hearings.
I wish to acknowledge the Treaty One First Nations, on whose traditional lands we gather today. These are lands where my Metis ancestors settled before Manitoba entered into Confederation.
Let me introduce the senators with us today. On my left is Deputy Chair Senator Nick Sibbeston from the Northwest Territories. Next to him are Senator Dan Lang from the Yukon and then Senator Elizabeth Hubley from Prince Edward Island. On my right is Senator Lillian Dyck from Saskatchewan. Next to her are Senator Robert Peterson from Saskatchewan and then Senator Sandra Lovelace Nicholas from New Brunswick.
Honourable senators, elders, guests, members of the audience, 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 of 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.
The Senate 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 for First Nations and political accountability.
Our role as a Senate committee is to consult and listen to what First Nations citizens have to say, and to work together toward finding better ways to help First Nations communities determine a better governance relationship for the citizens and their government.
Our first witness today is Chief Frank Brown of the Canupawakpa Dakota First Nation, whom I have met on previous occasions. Welcome to our committee. If you have a presentation, you can proceed now, and then we will ask you some questions. The floor is yours.
Frank Brown, Chief, Canupawakpa Dakota First Nation: Thank you, Mr. Chair. It is good to see you again. It is nice to be here and talk about the First Nation people.
With respect to the First Nations and the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States, terminology is important. The terminology we use today is yours. Mine is not recognized.
I am going to go back to the beginning of the United States and Canada, with the first arrivals of Europeans. Columbus supposedly discovered North America. My elders' story is that our people found his ship on the shore of the Atlantic. They observed it for a couple of days. There was no movement, so they went in and they found him and his crew, who were all starving. This one was the strongest of all of them, so they assumed he was the leader and would be the one to eat last. They brought him back and saved him, and nursed the crew back to health. That is our understanding of Columbus.
Columbus and others that arrived later assumed North America was unoccupied. To our people that was not so. Our country was occupied for thousands and thousands of years. They have maintained the country the way they were told. They used the term Creator, but I am going to use your term, God. God gave them instruction how to keep that land the way it is supposed to be, and promised they would live longer. The elders have always said that when they did that, their life span was longer, as much as a thousand years. It shortened drastically after the arrival of the Europeans, because that displaced some people and changed their diets and their medicines.
There is another question of terminology that has to be recognized. Columbus assumed he was in India and that our people were Indians. We are not Indians. According to my people, we are buffalo people. In our ceremonies, we are buffalo people. You call our language Sioux, and a lot of tribes speak it, but in our words, the language is the buffalo language.
Then there is the buffalo territory. Our elders teach that there are three parts to North America. One is the northern part, inhabited by the rabbit people. In the middle are the buffalo people. Then there are those in the south. Those three territories were well respected by each nation. According to our elders, God created people in North America, which would not end. However, they said, the other side of the world would end because its people did not maintain themselves and their land the way they were supposed to. Now the elders are saying that we will see the end in North America because we have violated the earth. The animals have no homes now. We, as Indians, have no homes. We are on reserves. We are just like the animals. We are put into areas.
The term "Indian" affects our lives. You may not think it does, or say it should not, but it does, in a lot of different ways. The term is derogatory to me because I am not Indian. I do not come from India. My language and religion are not Hindu.
The Indian Act is a racial policy that needs to be addressed. Under the Canadian constitution, I am a person like all of us sitting here. The Indian Act says I am an Indian, so the constitution does not apply to us. The government says we do not have a constitution, but we do, and that is what the world needs to understand. Every nation God created has a constitution. They all have the same values, the same laws. We are no different. It is just that we are being held hostage with the Indian Act.
We never had elections as the buffalo people. People did not elect Chief Sitting Bull, his leadership was given by God, and people knew that, and they understood that. So he was the one that was looking after the people. That is how leadership came about in our First Nations. The leaders are the gifted people.
I am a chief under the Indian Act, I was elected. I am an administrator for the funds that come from the federal government to my community. I administer those funds to be transparent, to be accountable. That is what the leadership is today.
Everything we do in our life is defined by our language. Without the language, we are not who we are anymore. I can educate myself to the max and have all the credentials, the diplomas, but I would not be a Dakota if I did not have that language.
We follow our natural laws where we never lie, we never corrupt. The position I am in is in conflict with our own laws. Sometimes it is hard to understand First Nations, but our ways are similar to your constitution. It is just that our constitution is not recognized.
It would help a bit if the Indian Act were changed, because it calls for an election every two years. By the time our chief works on a project and starts negotiating, his term is over. If he does not make it in the following election, the process has to start all over again. That is the cycle we are in right now, and that has to change. It should be like that of the federal government.
Senator Lang: How long have you been chief of the First Nation?
Mr. Brown: A little over a year now.
Senator Lang: Is this your first term? Have you been chief before?
Mr. Brown: I have been chief before. This is my second term.
Senator Lang: You are then into your third year as chief.
Mr. Brown: Yes.
Senator Lang: Prior to that, how long was the chief there?
Mr. Brown: She was there for two terms.
Senator Lang: The other question that I have is, with your First Nation is there a provision for recall by the band membership? In other words, if people are unhappy with the decision that you and your council have taken, can there be a vote for recall?
Mr. Brown: No.
Senator Lang: This is a general question. You said that there was no corruption, which I am glad to hear. However, yesterday we had an open mike session. A number of First Nation citizens appeared before us who were not chiefs or councillors, and they stated very plainly that they felt that, especially during elections, there was sometimes vote buying. That, I understand, is a concern of some of the rank and file about extending the period of time for councillors and chiefs to hold office.
Could you comment on that? Because that seems to be a bit of a thread that is running through some of the witnesses that have come before us.
Mr. Brown: You mean corruption in the election?
Senator Lang: Yes, that is exactly it. A number of the witnesses referred to that. They said that during the course of an election, election vote-buying, bribing and this type of thing went on?
Mr. Brown: Yes, that goes on. First Nations that have their language are not like that, but the ones that totally lost their language are like that.
Senator Lang: I want to go a little further to ensure that there is a fair process, one that is seen to be fair, and to take the taint of corruption out of it. For the purposes of elections, what would your opinion be if the First Nations were to contract with the provincial electoral office to run the election so it was totally impartial and unbiased?
Mr. Brown: Well, some of the First Nations were trying to deal with what you are asking about, because we wanted to do a drug test. Drugs are being used as a bribe for drug users. Some people that are running are users, promising that if they are elected, drugs would be open in the community. So drugs are being used in elections now, which is very dangerous and not good for the future, because some day, they will all be doing drugs, and what is going to happen to the ones that are not into drugs? We are trying to put in the drug test for leadership.
Senator Lang: I appreciate your openness.
Maybe you can inform us, from your knowledge as a chief, and you have been politically active for a number of years, not just in your First Nation but in the Province of Manitoba, how prevalent that is. Does that just apply to your First Nation or is it to quite a number of the First Nations across the province?
Mr. Brown: I speak to most of the chiefs and they are all concerned about that.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Thank you for being here this morning. From what I understand, you agreed to a four- year term as chief.
Mr. Brown: Yes.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: That means you will be in there for four years.
Mr. Brown: Yes.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Do you agree that there should be a four-year term?
Mr. Brown: Yes, I agree to a certain extent. I would agree to that. To my nation, it is not.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: So if you would agree to it, you would go against your nation?
Mr. Brown: Yes. I would go against my own natural laws.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Oh, your natural laws. I understand that now.
With respect to corrupt elections or embezzlement on the part of the chief and council, do you think they should be charged under the law for their dishonesty?
Mr. Brown: We should all face the consequences fairly, not letting this one go with a slap on the hand and then put that one away for years.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Exactly, yes.
Mr. Brown: First Nations and government and Indian Affairs should be no different, because Indian Affairs is the boss and the First Nations are just administering. It would not be fair.
I have an issue about this as well, if there is corruption among First Nations, perhaps for years, and headquarters is letting it pass. Headquarters should be accountable for that too. Because we do annual reports. Why is the corruption not recognized? That is my question. I wrote a letter to INAC requesting a forensic audit, but I never got an answer.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: I understand there has been a lot of that going on, where Indian Affairs just refuses to acknowledge, refuses to investigate. So you think there should be something within the system to make sure that these Indian Affairs or RCMP should immediately intervene?
Mr. Brown: That is what it states in some of those contribution agreements we signed, but that is not happening.
I was trying to address the fact that my term of office ends in January. We had an election in January and I got in. The previous chief from Canupawakpa signed a contribution agreement with INAC. Come January, they broke that contract. I inherited that problem from the previous chief and I refused to sign off for the months between the election and the end of the fiscal year. I totally disagree with the fact that I am the one standing there holding that broken contract. That is not my contract. Elections should be based on fiscal years, in order to be accountable and to be transparent.
Senator Peterson: Your tribe is not a signatory to any treaty with Canada.
Mr. Brown: Not with Canada.
Senator Peterson: Are you part of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs? Do you operate within their regime then?
Mr. Brown: We opted out of the AMC and the Southern Chiefs' Organization. Canada says we do not have a treaty, we are refugees. If we do not have a treaty, then what are we doing in the treaty organizations? If we are not treaty, then we have totally separate issues to deal with. The AMC and SCO are treaty organizations and they only deal with treaty issues. I am working with the AMC right now to form an alliance, as a treaty organization and a non-treaty organization, to work together on various issues. We have finalized an alliance with the SCO already, so we will work together as a treaty nation and a non-treaty nation.
Senator Peterson: So you are not under the Indian Act then for electoral purposes?
Mr. Brown: Well, we were forced under that Indian Act in the early 1950s.
Senator Peterson: So in terms of elections, you do have to follow that?
Mr. Brown: Yes.
Senator Peterson: You stated that if the Indian Act was changed, it would help you, yet previous attempts by the government to do this have failed. In fact, First Nations have said that even minor legislative amendments would be resisted by First Nations.
That does not seem to be getting you anywhere, and yet you do want to change the terms. Do you operate under custom elections then? You could though?
Mr. Brown: We are under the Indian Act.
Senator Peterson: Yes. You could revert to custom elections and then set your own terms. Is this not feasible?
Mr. Brown: The way you interpret it, yes, we would do it that way. However, the custom election only allows us three or four years. So it is not a custom. It is not really a custom election. So I disagree with that custom election also.
Senator Peterson: Well, that could be because it seems to cause a lot of problems even within First Nations. I mean, what does custom mean? Their customs, your custom, it is an alternative election system.
Mr. Brown: Yes, but it is not my custom.
Senator Peterson: You could call it something else. It would be an alternative election procedure that you could at least do. It is not going to happen under the Act, it appears. If you want those fixed dates, and as you say on the fiscal year and with fixed dates, you are going to have to change to an alternate regime, call it what you want.
Mr. Brown: If the Government of Canada is going to change it to four years, or change that custom election and state that, okay, you can do it your way, then the government has to do that. I cannot go home and ask the people to change that when that process is going to take 10, 15 or 20 years. You have to change that because you made it. The government made that Indian Act and the laws, it is up to them to change it.
Senator Peterson: Well, that would be fine, but I do not think they are going to change it, because now it is so entrenched and all other First Nations resisted. So the government is not going to change something when the vast majority of First Nations are opposed to it. Unfortunately, you are caught in an awkward situation here, but I think you can go to an alternate election system. I think you have to go back to your people, consult with them, get the majority of them to say, yes, we want to do this, and then do it. I mean, you would still have to work out all the details. I am not saying it is easy. That way it might happen.
The other way, I do not think it will. If you are waiting for the government to change, it is not going to happen, not in the foreseeable future, unfortunately.
Mr. Brown: Well, I do not expect the government to change it.
Senator Peterson: You just said, the government made the Indian Act.
Mr. Brown: Why did they make the Indian Act then? They will never change that.
Senator Peterson: Yes. So I think you have to go the other route. If you are going to have these changes, you have got to do it yourself.
Senator Dyck: I am going to follow along the same lines as Senator Peterson, because you did suggest that changing the Indian Act would help. If the Indian Act were to be revised, what do you think should be changed, if it could be changed? What sort of things should be brought forward that would make life easier with respect to elections? If you had your own way, ideally, what would you like?
Mr. Brown: I would throw away the Indian Act, get rid of the reserve, and be people instead of being Indians and treated like animals. If you define the word "reserve," what does that mean? A reserve for animals is one meaning. That is the way I look at it. It is unconstitutional.
Senator Dyck: Yes, I think other people have suggested that, if the Indian Act were to be subjected to an analysis, it would be found to be unconstitutional.
You also spent a little bit of time talking about corrupt practices within elections. My question to you would be this: Do you think there is any relationship between the current system of elections and corruption, or would corruption be there in elections on the model of municipal and provincial elections? Is it something to do with the system that is set up on the reserve, or is it just a symptom of drug problems regardless of whether it is on a reserve or in the City of Winnipeg?
Mr. Brown: Well, let us go back to the corruption of the elections. A lot of these complaints about corruption addressed to Indian Affairs have never been addressed. So where do you take issues like corruption? The police do not want to handle it. So that is why the corruptions are there.
Senator Dyck: So it is a failure on the part of the Department of Indian Affairs and on the RCMP, not on the people themselves?
Mr. Brown: Yes. Because, if INAC tells the RCMP it is okay, then the RCMP is going to walk away.
Senator Dyck: So if I am understanding correctly then, it is not the electoral process that is a problem. It is not the process of the election, but it is the management by Indian Affairs.
Mr. Brown: Headquarters.
Senator Dyck: Other factors have led to it. It is not a flaw within the electoral system.
Mr. Brown: It is the headquarters.
Senator Dyck: The headquarters?
Mr. Brown: Yes, it is the headquarters that can change the elections from fiscal year to fiscal year. They do not want to do that.
Senator Hubley: I am going back to the two versus four years. We have had presentations to suggest that it would be a better governance system to have a longer term, at least to try that. In your experience, would that have been helpful for you?
Mr. Brown: It would.
Senator Hubley: It would be better, because you have already had the two terms. Being elected for four years might also have been advantageous because the election itself seems to be a volatile time. It seems to be a difficult time for your community. Is that the same? Because we have heard that the elections can be very disruptive to the general operation of the administration of the band.
Do you find that when there is an election called, it is a time of unrest and upheaval within the community?
Mr. Brown: Really, the election is not that, not the problem. It is INAC again. For example, if there is a conflict of interest in the election and you want to address it, you cannot get it addressed.
Senator Hubley: Suppose the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs decided that they could put together a constitution to govern their elections, that they would be satisfied with. Would it be possible if that was brought to government, that that part of the Indian Act might be set aside so that it could be left to the First Nations communities to handle their own elections? Do you think that would work?
Mr. Brown: Yes, providing INAC recognized the constitution, the consequences and all the policies. It has to be recognized.
Senator Hubley: I do not think it will happen, though, unless it is driven from your communities to say: "We are dissatisfied with the Indian Act as it relates to elections. We have put together a better plan. Many of our communities are already on custom codes for their elections, and we would like that set aside from the Indian Act." It might be a way of taking back some of the ownership of your own governance.
Mr. Brown: Yes.
Senator Hubley: Do you think that might be an option?
Mr. Brown: It will work somewhat.
Senator Hubley: It cannot work somewhat; it has to work to your benefit. You have to be in charge.
Mr. Brown: Well, you say it would be to my benefit, but would it be recognized off the reserve? If there was corruption, could we deal with it or is that another blind eye that is going to be turned?
Senator Hubley: I would think we would have to deal with it, certainly. If a law is broken, whether it pertains to elections or to anything else, there have to be consequences.
Mr. Brown: There are a lot of laws broken, but would you take action? That is what I am saying.
Senator Hubley: Well, that would have to be dealt with within this, your Assembly of Chiefs, to come up with who is going to be accountable; and if they are not accountable, what options would you have and what other ways that you can deal with it?
Mr. Brown: I understand what you are saying, and I am going to go back to it again. If there is corruption, you take it to the police. The police are going to take it on but INAC comes along and says, that is all right. So the law walks away because Canada, the government of the day, says it is okay. So there is no justice in the system that is put in place for us. We can follow it, I can follow it, but is the law going to?
Senator Hubley: You had mentioned signing off, because your term began in January, and the fiscal year is up in April, I presume?
Mr. Brown: Yes.
Senator Hubley: If you were setting up election dates, that there would be an election date say every four years, is that something that you would take into account, that indeed there is an accountability that you have to sign off every year. Perhaps April would be the time for elections, plus the signing off of the previous administration if there should be a change?
Mr. Brown: Yes, there should be a change. The election should begin on April 1.
Senator Hubley: I do not want to leave a loose end, but I think our committee is getting your ideas and getting your experiences so we can make recommendations or do a report. Our report is going to be based on what we have heard. I do not mean to keep at you as to the change from two to four years and how you are going to make it work, but that is going to be an important step for you to take.
I think it would be, for us, important if we could say that, yes, this is happening, it is well thought out, it is an initiative that is going to be good for the Manitoba nations and we would like to report that back. Thank you for your answers.
The Chair: Chief Brown, suppose the majority of the AMC, the Association of Manitoba Chiefs, decided as an organization to set up an electoral process outside the Indian Act. With the present status of the Dakota people, would you be able and prepared to buy into that, work with that, and adopt that as your election process?
There have been negotiations in trying to establish a relationship between the government and the Sioux nations. How many are there, five of them in Manitoba?
Mr. Brown: Yes.
The Chair: And six in Saskatchewan, I believe.
Mr. Brown: Yes.
The Chair: These basically were people who moved out of South Dakota and settled in Manitoba and Saskatchewan. Would you think that would work for your people and for you? If the AMC said we are going to go this route, we are going to set up a chief electoral officer, we are going to set up a method of an ombudsman or whatever, an auditor general within the structure, the election structure, would you be prepared to recommend that to your people, and do you think your people would go along with that? That would mean four year terms or whatever they decided on, three year terms; what is your feeling on that, chief?
Mr. Brown: Well, that would be way better than what we have right now.
The Chair: Do you think your people would buy into that?
Mr. Brown: Yes.
Senator Lang: I just want to get a couple of things clarified, and the chair I think touched on it for a minute. Are you a First Nation registered under the Indian Act? At one point, you referred to your First Nation as refugees. Are you defined First Nations? I do not see you on the list here?
The Chair: No, it is here.
Senator Lang: Which name? Does INAC refer to your First Nation in a different name or something here?
Tonina Simeone, Researcher, Library of Parliament: Oak Lake.
Senator Lang: I was not clear on that. I wanted to pursue that a little bit further.
You talked about annual reports being submitted to the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs. If there are some indications of wrongdoing or whatever, are they included in those annual reports when they are filed with INAC?
Mr. Brown: I do not think so.
Senator Lang: You said that you as chief, and I am assuming, council, requested a forensic audit; is that correct?
Mr. Brown: Yes.
Senator Lang: How did INAC reply?
Mr. Brown: There was no response.
Senator Lang: Was this when you were first elected three years ago?
Mr. Brown: Just when I came in.
Senator Lang: So that would be three years ago?
Mr. Brown: A year ago.
Senator Lang: Okay.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Chief Brown, for appearing this morning. There are some complexities in dealing with the chief's nation because of the fact that, as he points out, they consider themselves refugees. It is, I understand, under the Indian Act?
Mr. Brown: It is the Government of Canada that calls us refugees. How can a nation be a refugee in their own territory? That is not possible.
I also have my constitutions and my bylaws in place. That is very hard to enforce because INAC refuses to recognize those. That is the problem. If INAC refuses to recognize it, then the law does not recognize it. The law follows INAC because they are the Government of Canada counsel. We can work well together and be accountable for the funds that come to my community, but it is hard to do that when headquarters is not cooperating. That is my issue.
The Chair: To clarify, how large, what is your population?
Mr. Brown: About 600.
The Chair: How large a land mass do you have,?
Mr. Brown: Two by two.
The Chair: Two miles by two miles?
Mr. Brown: Two miles square.
The Chair: They are on a small land allocation as well, one of the real small reserves. This is another thing.
I would like to thank you, sir, for appearing before us. Hopefully we will be able to come up with recommendations that will improve the situation. If you think of anything else that you would like on the record, contact the committee or my office and they can get through to me.
Senators, we have now before us representing the Swampy Tribal Council, Grand Chief Norman Glen Ross from Opaskwayak Cree Nation.
Grand Chief Norman Glen Ross, Opaskwayak Cree Nation: Thank you all for inviting me and allowing me to come and make a presentation to you all this morning. We were hoping to have a written presentation by the Swampy Cree Tribal Council through one of our colleagues Ovide Mercredi, who was going to be here with me today, but he had to leave for Vancouver. There are eight of us in the tribal council, eight chiefs, and we meet together regularly to talk about different things such as First Nation development and trying to get our people ahead.
When we were asked to come forward with a presentation, we had a meeting and had a long discussion on what this meant to us, because some of us are on custom election processes and some of us are in the Indian Act still. As a result of that, we put our heads together and said, well, what are we trying to achieve here and what are we trying to develop?
One of the things we talked about was process and why First Nations have such a hard time sometimes with INAC- initiated changes to how we work and how we operate. Frequently, we are not involved in a real way. Neither are our ideas, the things we think would work on the reserve and how we operate.
A lot of times when things are brought forward, it is really hard for us to swallow them, like changes to the election codes and things like that. We do agree that there should be changes to the term. The two-year term is too short for people to even try and think of initiating things and getting things going. So we agree that there should be changes made to the Indian Act and to the election codes, but it should be done with the First Nations. They should be heavily involved.
It is proven that when First Nations take control or responsibility, things get better. Take health centres, for example: Those First Nations that are in control of their own health programs, see hospital visitation slowly drop over the years. It is proven that that is what happens.
So it is a good argument for us when we go forward, that when there are changes that need to be initiated, we should be the ones that are heavily involved in initiating and making them for the right reasons.
I heard conversations as I was listening about things like accountability, you know, like being transparent, showing your people who and what you are and how you are operating. Back home, we feel also that that is extremely important. However, a lot of times, we have trouble trying to make things stick. For example, provincial law and federal law put us in a gray area as First Nations. We do not know who is backing us up.
We need strong backing for our election codes to be credible and to have an effect on the reserve. We believe that we should be at a high level of accountability and credibility, because of who and what we are. On a First Nation, a lot of the attitudes and a lot of the thinking is different because it is like a commune where we all grew up and live together in a small space. The thinking is a lot more family oriented, and it is really difficult when we are starting to initiate change and bring change onto the reserves. Again, that should be initiated from within so that we can bring those forward.
One of the things with change in First Nations country is the need for communication. We are talking about making wholesale changes so that everybody is on the same level, and so on. It is very difficult in First Nations territory to communicate, because our communication systems are so poor. We have our reserves, and traditionally, we are brought up to push each other back and be front and centre when it comes to funding and going after money and things like housing and education that are really important to the reserves. So when it comes to working together and bringing everything to one place, there is a lot of concern and a lot of mistrust.
I guess one of the biggest messages from the First Nations is that the government's good intentions should be brought to the First Nations. The First Nations should be the ones that initiate those changes to make things such as accountability and credibility better on the reserves.
When there is something bad happening with the election processes itself, and there is a fight or something like that, they need to be worked out from within also. Sometimes INAC does not support the First Nations: They are not able to help with training, they are not able to help with bringing in options, they are not able to help with a lot of things. Even with the internal disputes, you know, they have a hard time working with those too. Those with custom elections do not have support. They are off on their own.
A lot of the First Nations need to learn how to bring all the policies in and all the election codes and things that really make for a credible election. They need to have strong backing, because when we are operating here, the federal government and the province both need to be comfortable and they both need to have faith in the processes and in the systems and in the outcomes. A lot of that cannot happen because of coordination and communication.
When we are talking about First Nations and in the bigger picture of things, there are a lot of coordinated meetings and efforts that need to occur for things to be solid.
It is the same thing with election processes. We are always negotiating now with the Province of Manitoba. As a federal entity, INAC cannot give us policies or guidelines, because they just do not have that capacity. I do not think they have them in the back room anywhere. I have not seen them flying out yet.
So we have to be really close and tight with the province, so that we can marry into their child care programs and their policies, and mix and match them with First Nations so that they are strong and they are followed by everybody. Right now, they are off on their own because, again, they are initiated by somebody else; it is as if they are from Mars.
When new things occur, they comes from right out of the blue. It is trying to change the thinking in a lot of ways.
A lot of First Nations people, because of our development, are stuck on the reserve. There is an imaginary boundary there, and the thinking is set so that we have a very difficult time with things like employment, getting them out working, getting them off reserve, getting the security blanket off them and getting them out there. It is very, very hard. What do you compare it to? The French and wine, perhaps, where you tell them to quit and they just think you are crazy. On the reserve, it is the same sort of thing: "Change what you are doing." "You are crazy. I am going to do it because it keeps me safe, it is what we have been doing, and we are secure in our own little boundaries, here, so just back off."
It has been really difficult for First Nation chiefs to try and initiate that change and to bring it together, because it is a change in thinking and a change in the way you live, and that causes a lot of problems on the reserve, and a lot of concern.
When we are talking about elections, election codes, our First Nations believe in the same thing everybody else does: strong election policy, strong codes and strong backing for them. They must be credible, so that all people respect them, all Canadians, so we can do things more easily and better between each other in this country as we try and develop. Any way you look at it right now, First Nations people are like Martians in Canada because they are so different in terms of how they live, their level of education, their level of health, their level of incomes. Everything is way down below.
Anything we do and initiate on our own really sticks in that community. The process helps us with those changes that are sometimes so hard to do otherwise.
A lot of issues are tied to this election process. The message we want to give is that to us it is part of a bigger process that needs to occur with the Indian Act. It is part of the Indian Act, but we need a lot of changes to that in general. Maybe that is something you can take forward: That we need to do it in a bigger package and we need to do it together so that it will work. When the planning is done, everybody needs to be in the same room together. Then we will all know the outcomes, because we all plan on it together, and we all run with it together. That is the most important message that we bring forward.
When it is issues like this that come by, it is not so much the issue itself, but the processes. We have to look at our processes and change them, and include the First Nations in the planning, in a big way, so that it sticks. If everybody backs it up, it is supported and it is strong. So that when there are problems, policies are there to take them, to address them.
A lot of work has to be done in coordination with RCMP, with the province, with the federal government, with us, with all the groups that are involved in that crazy little soup we call First Nation territory.
As a chief, the easiest way for me sometimes to deal with the governments is to throw an issue out the window. Then it is on their plate. On the provincial side, they do not know how or what they can deal with us. So it is something we really need to talk about at all levels of government, so we can bring First Nations forward and become a part of this country; so we can contribute and be proud to be a part of it, instead of trying to find our way in and trying to fight our way in.
A lot of us get tired of it and a lot of us do not follow that. We would rather try and negotiate, try and build teams, working relationships. It is a long process, though, when things and thinking are not set up to be that way.
I have one of my chiefs here from the Swampy Cree Tribal Council who also wanted to speak about what had happened in his First Nation. Would it be all right, or am I too late?
The Chair: Please keep it short.
Mr. Ross: Chief Colomb, please just focus on your election. Remember there was a conflict and you could not get help because you were a custom.
The Chair: Would you state your name and where you are from, please?
Andrew Colomb, Chief, Marcel Colomb First Nation: We were originally recognized as a new First Nation in March 1999.
We are still under development. When we were first recognized as a new First Nation, we developed an election code, a four-year term election code. I do not know if I can say it made any changes to what we would like to accomplish. The four-year term sometimes leads to conflicts with INAC. I think in many cases, it is to their advantage rather than to our advantage. Sometimes it is a disadvantage to have a long term.
Our mother band is Mathias Colomb, which is Pukatawagan, which is under the Indian Act and has two-year terms. This is what we grew up on. Then suddenly, as a new First Nation, we had a four-year term. I thought this would be an advantage to us. It is more like being under more control.
There were some things that I needed to mention regarding the control. The things I was negotiating for and the plans we had developed do not work according to the plans that we were supposed to have. The ones that were approved were not approved until after the four years.
It is more like control now when there is a new First Nation leader, and all of what I have worked for is gone. So whether it is a short term or a long term, the issue is that whatever is approved within that year, the programs or whatever projects that are approved at that time should overlap and still continue, without any change. Regardless of the short term or the long term, INAC still has that control to be able to approve when they need to approve. So it is clear what happens when this election comes around again and there is a new chief sitting there. Chances are that he is not going to support the project that was approved.
These are some of the issues I think that need to be looked at and included in this, if we do not have an election code.
Senator Lang: I would just like to address this to Grand Chief Ross here. First of all, I guess you said there were eight First Nations within your treaty area; is that correct?
Mr. Ross: Yes.
Senator Lang: How many are in custom code and how many have four-year terms?
Mr. Ross: There are four, four on custom and four I believe on the Indian Act. I am not too sure.
Senator Lang: For those on the custom code, what is their term of office, is it two years, four years?
Mr. Ross: I believe Grand Rapids is three years and the rest are four.
Senator Lang: So there is some experience with longer terms?
Mr. Ross: Yes.
Senator Lang: Do these particular First Nations have a system of recall, so that after an election, if the community is not happy with a certain decision, they can go out and recall the chief and the council?
Mr. Ross: I believe they do, yes.
Senator Lang: Has recall been exercised in the last little while.
Mr. Ross: That was where there was a problem, when there was a recall issue. Sometimes INAC gets involved, sometimes they do not if it is custom. In the province, some of the reserves have experienced that.
And that is one of the things that Mr. Colomb was telling us about. They did ask for help in one of their election processes and they did not get any. So you are kind of left on your own, even if you are on custom. I think they should still help, you know, just to make it better.
Senator Lang: I just want to go a little bit further on the question of recall because I see that as a very key element that can cause a lot of strife in a community. Assume the election is bona fide, it is legitimate, and it is a three or four year term. However, you have this recall provision that allows for those that disagree with the council, maybe on every issue, to combine together and try to overtake, overthrow the government.
Mr. Ross: Yes.
Senator Lang: Is that a particular provision that perhaps the Indian Affairs should be looking at in conjunction with First Nations and saying, look, once the election is done, the recall system should not be there?
Mr. Ross: Absolutely. They have to figure it out, because you are right, politics and the business operations are two different things. If bad things are happening, if you are losing money, for example, or people are stealing money, there should be systems in place that take care of that, the recall or whatever. In terms of politics, just because you do not agree, there should not be any processes there that throw somebody out unless it is really terrible.
Senator Lang: What would your position be if the First Nations were to reach an agreement with the Province of Manitoba to have their electoral commission contracted to oversee elections so that there would be no question of impartiality and also the running of an election?
Mr. Ross: I think that is something they would look at, if they had the opportunity to work with them directly on issues such as what kind of policies and systems are going to be used, and they all agree. That would be something that would work. Because there is another issue there — credibility. How credible is a First Nation election? And if it is backed up by other systems, it just makes it that much more credible.
Senator Lang: Now, I just want to go to another area here that has been brought up. There seems to be an underlying threat from the rank and file, the few that we heard from at an open mike. They talked about the fact that they did not want to extend terms of office because there was "corruption" and bribery and this type of thing. Then we heard it earlier this morning as well.
How prevalent is this question of misuse of drugs and various things, and misuse of the electoral process during an election? You must talk amongst yourselves as chiefs, and chiefs and councillors.
Mr. Ross: Yes, back at OCN, since 1975 we have had really strong processes, and problems have not been as prevalent. In others, we see where there are issues, where there is unaccountability in the election processes, and buyouts occur, or promises of furniture or housing or money or whatever. You are right, that needs to be addressed.
One of our First Nations in the province has done that through their council. That is Norway House, where they had I think some councillors actually removed, because in the election process they had promised different things to people.
So it is getting to be that tight now where you cannot just do whatever you want just because you are running for an election. It is starting to occur. Again, we really need to get together and get those out of our way so that they are not an issue.
Senator Peterson: Just a point of information from Chief Colomb. You said you were recognized as a First Nation in 1999. Was that a band reinstatement? What process was that, chief?
Mr. Colomb: We separated from Mathias Colomb in a process that began in 1972, through a resolution to the chief and council. In 1997, Minister Ron Irwin in Grand Rapids said that we would become a new First Nation if we went through a plebiscite, and if Mathias Colomb would allow us to separate to establish a new First Nation.
Senator Peterson: You were not brand new, you had separated from a previous band, for whatever reasons, and then wanted to be your own band?
Mr. Colomb: Yes.
Senator Peterson: All right.
Mr. Colomb: When we became a new First Nation, when I mentioned about developing an election code, a custom election code, INAC funded that. An employee from INAC helped us develop the election code.
At the end of the day, when we wanted to use our election code for our people, I was told it was full of holes and we were not able to use it. We were stuck with something that Canada had approved. They put it in the Canada Gazette. They put it there and it was approved by Canada; they were accepted by Canada. However, when we went back to wanting to use it to defend our First Nation as a whole, it was full of holes and we could not use it.
These are things that are still in process. Right now we are in the process of developing another election code after a lawyer reviewed it and he said it was no good.
So these are the things that I talk about, about control. Then they come back to me and tell me about accountability and transparency. These are things that they are now holding against me. When they say that, well, then I am more like an agent, I am more like the Indian agent. How can I be accountable to my people if this is the rule that you set out for me to follow?
Senator Peterson: We have heard that many times, that INAC made changes without any consultation. Yet the federal government has brought in duty to consult for everybody else. If you are doing something, you have to consult, you have to talk.
Do you think that they should maybe have to follow their own code?
Mr. Ross: Yes. We all need to get together to plan this all out. However, for following different routes, different policies, it does not work.
Senator Peterson: Grand Chief Ross, you had mentioned the trouble chiefs have with people in the area who do not trust INAC, and that election procedure is just one part of a much bigger picture with the Indian Act. Do you think that Kelowna was a step, a start in the right direction?
Mr. Ross: Absolutely, yes. Any processes that are done together need to be implemented. A lot of things have been done since then and have not worked because we have not planned them out properly. Even in this province, First Nations have spent something like $60 million trying to get into self-government processes, where the other side was not ready for them. They were just dishing out the money to get all this stuff done and it did not go anywhere.
So after awhile, the First Nations quit accepting that money and said that is enough, we are getting away from this process, we are stopping the Framework Agreement Initiative process, that is it. We are walking away until we come up with something better. It was crazy for everybody.
Senator Dyck: I am going to follow up on what Senator Peterson was talking about.
Mr. Colomb, you were saying that you had a custom election approved by INAC, but it was full of holes. I believe you said it was a legal opinion that told you the custom code was no good.
Mr. Colomb: Yes.
Senator Dyck: Did you have to go for a legal opinion because you were finding that the process you had was leading to some problems? What kind of problems was it creating for you?
Mr. Colomb: Well, for one thing, INAC was not able to assist with our problems. Because of the custom election code, they could not be involved. They were the ones that approved it. A majority of the people did not approve of what was happening at the council level. We wanted to call a re-election. We were not able to get the sitting people out. The things that were on our election code, the ones that were stated on our election code, we were not able to use those because of other things that were written on our election code. So we could not use our election code to remove council.
Mr. Ross: At the end of the day, it was not strong enough to even use.
Mr. Colomb: The legal counsel read through our election code and said there were contradictions and a lot of things that were there, we could not use. Right now, we are in the process of changing that election code.
Senator Dyck: If I understand you correctly then, the custom code that was approved by the department contained within it elements that contradicted each other?
Mr. Colomb: Somewhat, yes.
Mr. Ross: Yes.
Senator Dyck: As it stands, you are allowed, because you are no longer under departmental control, to change your election code?
Mr. Colomb: Right, yes.
Senator Dyck: So you are in the process of doing that now?
Mr. Colomb: Right, yes.
Senator Dyck: So those contradictions within the code would impede you from carrying out the business, whether it is economic development or whatever?
Mr. Colomb: Yes. Then when those things occur, then it comes back to the First Nation.
Senator Dyck: Right.
Mr. Colomb: These are all things that are held against us now. Because this is the practice, and you continue to allow this kind of practice, you support this kind of practice.
Mr. Ross: So if there were questions by INAC about practices overseen by a council, INAC could not even implement their election code to make changes because it was too full of holes. When you are driving a Jeep and need a tank, it is not going to work.
There is a lot of coordination that needs to be done to really get this thing set up right. Get us involved, I guess, is what it is.
Senator Dyck: So I wonder, in your opinion then, would it be necessary for INAC to revise the method that it has for setting up custom codes? Because as I understand it, it is probably not completely correct. They have a form and they go out and they use this form. And they teach you, show you how to fill out this form to come up with your code. So there may be something fundamentally wrong even with their standard form.
Mr. Ross: Absolutely. If it does not stand up in a court of law or an election process, then it is not right.
We in the Opaskwayak Cree Nation are still under the INAC system. The OCN chief and council, there are 12 of us, include all our staff in our planning. However, we cannot get close enough together to agree on an election code. It has taken us two years now. We are arguing over things like should councillors be paid, terms, recall issues, when should they occur, when should they not? We have taken wo years and we still have not finished. Then there are changes happening and all sorts of stuff coming through the Indian Act. Under INAC, you would just fill out the form and all of a sudden it is all fine and dandy. Well, there is a miss there somewhere.
Senator Dyck: One could be a little cynical and say that INAC was just wanting to step out of the picture and handed you something that they maybe intentionally or not knew was not going to work.
Mr. Ross: I do not know. The people and the policies at INAC have to get together. I believe their intentions are, some of them, to help us move forward, but the policies hold everybody down. It is like the inability sometimes of the province and the federal government to get together and help us plan things out really well, in many ways. All it is, is just working together and planning together and agreeing to things.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Grand Chief Ross, you mentioned that before coming to this hearing, you got together with some leaders and you put your heads together. Were there any grassroots people or women involved in this putting your heads together?
Mr. Ross: No. We were told about this on Thursday.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: So you did not have time to consult?
Mr. Ross: No, we did not even have time to run home and talk to anybody, even our own councils. We would have liked to take it home and bounce it off everybody and see what they think and see what their thoughts are, because it has financial impacts, it has impacts on leadership. First Nations have a hard time with these processes.
Our First Nation's council fought for two years because our meeting policies and our other policies are so weak and allow this to happen. We need to strengthen everything at the top level, so that it gives us easier time to catch up.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: So after everything is decided, then you go back to them.
Mr. Ross: We go tell them what is coming down the line.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: No, but the changes that are coming in, should they not be informed and be ready to either accept or not accept?
Mr. Ross: Well, yes. The way we like to do it at home, when we do our planning, is to try and include them as much as possible, so that there is not too much conflict over policies. Then they are involved and they agree and they approve of things.
Our processes are so slow at the reserve level because of trying to interact with everybody and get everybody to understand and agree. You know, like I said, it is almost like a commune. We are still communists in this democratic world. So even that is kind of weird.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: I want to go back to the recall process. I guess this is the topic of the morning. How long does that take?
Mr. Ross: A recall process?
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Yes.
Mr. Ross: It varies. If the election code and election policy are solid, recalls happen fast and in the right way. If the codes are full of holes and there is fighting, it can take years. Then there is another election and the mess just keeps going on and on. We are weak in getting help.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: I do not follow?
Mr. Ross: We do not have the resources of the federal government.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Yes.
Mr. Ross: The government has all its programs, all its people, all its policies, all its money, all its specialists and scientists and so on. He and I are asked to do a lot of these things on our own, and we are not smart.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Oh, come on, you must be smart; you are a chief.
Mr. Ross: We do not have the same capacity as you guys do.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Okay, I understand. Thank you.
The Chair: You are very humble.
When you go back, are you going to be speaking to your people?
Mr. Ross: Yes.
The Chair: When you speak to them, is there any way that you could send the committee the feedback that you are getting from your people?
Mr. Ross: Absolutely. That would be something to share for sure.
The Chair: If you would be prepared to do that, we would look forward to receiving a small submission from you. I realize you do not have the support staff that we have or other organizations have, but if you could do that once you presented to your people, it would help us a lot in our deliberations.
Mr. Ross: Yes, absolutely.
Senator Hubley: Mr. Colomb, you are now on a four-year term. You mentioned that you are still having conflicts with the department. You suggested that plans were not delivered in a reasonable fashion, plans I assume that were negotiated. I understood you to say that because it was for four years, that somehow gave INAC reason to hold back but not deliver in a forthcoming manner. Do you want to elaborate on that?
Mr. Colomb: Okay. Well you see, in March of 1999, we were recognized as a new First Nation. We had to complete the election code by June so that we could have an election, because we are now recognized as a new First Nation. We needed an election code because we did not want the two-year term.
We are a new First Nation. Perhaps a little history would be appropriate. In 1972, a resolution seeking to be a First Nation was passed by the chief and council. We had a vision of the reasons why we had to protect our lands, because mining people were coming there to destroy our lands. We had to do something to protect those lands. We had to try and become a new First Nation, so we could speak for ourselves.
For about ten years, we lived in a tent village in the outskirts of Lynn Lake. We lived in plastic tents. We were supposed to go back home, but we chose not to. Our children went to residential schools and they came home to the tent village at Christmas.
These are the choices we made at that time. I have always acknowledged our trail blazers time for being able to do the things that they had to do, the sacrifices that they made to be able to make something a reality.
Now, in 1999, this dream became true. This vision that we had for the longest time did happen.
Back in about 1980, when mining activity was declining, we were allowed to move into the residential area in Lynn Lake. Two weeks after there was a knock on the door, Child and Family Services came and told us we were not fit parents and they had to take our children away. They allowed our children to go to school but labelled them all as Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, to get more money so that the school can continue to run.
These are things that happened during our journey to become recognized.
In 1999, we were recognized. We are still under development as of today. We have no infrastructure and we have no housing.
So we planned to celebrate our 10 years and invite government people to see, you know, where we are. However, that is difficult because of the things that have happened. As a leader, I have to be accountable to INAC for a whole range of things. How can I be accountable to my First Nation when these things are being brought to me?
One other thing with your question is the time frame. I had March to June to develop an election code. INAC is the only one that is there to develop it, and within that time. We later found out that it is full of holes and is useless to us. It was fine for INAC because now it has nothing to do with us.
Mr. Ross: You still report to INAC.
Mr. Colomb: I still have to report to INAC.
Mr. Ross: You are accountable to them instead of to your own people.
Mr. Colomb and this community have come a long way. From tents to making the move to try and speak for their people through a government so that they can get more. They have made a lot of progress from where they were, but still there is a long way to go. They do not have infrastructure. They are trying to put in water and sewer like everybody else. So when you look at where everybody else is and then at where a lot of us are, it is like night and day. Trying to reach the point where we are even close is a big leap. It is all part of the same big picture, the election codes, our processes, our governments and how we operate.
Senator Hubley: So you went to a four-year term, obviously there were reasons for that, over the two-year term. Do you know what they were at the time?
Mr. Colomb: We are trying to change the systems.
Senator Hubley: Yes, to work within the systems. Thank you very much.
Mr. Colomb: One senator asked about the reaction at the grassroots level. I did speak to some of our members regarding this process. When I spoke to one of the elders, he gave me a message to give you. He said that, for the longest time as Aboriginal people, we have been pushed back into a corner and expected to live healthily in this one corner and not access anything else even though they say Canada is the richest country in the world. The question is who is insane and who is sane, he said. Right now, the only thing keeping us sane is alcohol. Otherwise, we would all be insane. That is his perspective.
I think alcohol benefits First Nations only in that they do not become terrorists. I think alcohol is the thing that is holding people from becoming much more than what they are today. That has to change.
We are the first people of this country. They have been doing research for hundreds of years and have not found where we came from, so it is wasting money to do research on where Aboriginal people come from. Why do we not just start to work with Aboriginal people and accept the fact that they are first people of this country?
Senator Hubley: Good governance and leadership: Is that going to be an important part of addressing the other issues that you are facing?
Mr. Colomb: My experiences with my children show this: Because of the need for economic development, I have to feed other people and let my children starve. That is a fact. I have to keep a school open to get special funding so that I can feed other families while I let mine starve. We are not able to access those opportunities that are there. In communities like Lynn Lake, there are police to protect and serve others while my children are headed to the Youth Centre. There are programs and services, but when my child gets in trouble, they take him and bypass all of these programs and services and put him in the Youth Centre.
Then, when these children come back, the people that do this, are the very people that bitch and complain about the things that are happening in the community. Why do they not support educating them and let them use all the programs and services that are there that have been bypassed?
Mr. Ross: I want to say something on that. Right now, First Nation governance, the way we are set up, means our good people do not want to come back. We need them to come back and to be better trained. We need them to have degrees. Our systems are so weak and so politically biased that they do not give anybody a chance to do anything. So we have got to head that way also, to open the door for them to make the way, to set it up.
The Chair: Chief Colomb, that is a real sad commentary that you had to make in regards to what your elders told you.
We keep doing the same thing over and over. We are dealing with elections here. We have been told that the subject is greater than elections, and I think we know that.
Grand Chief Ross, I think you are exposed to a lot here in Manitoba. We are really in the heart of First Nations country here in Manitoba and bordered by Saskatchewan and Northeastern Ontario, not that Alberta and B.C. are not involved. My question is really broad. Do you think there is a will in the hearts of First Nations people to really look at a dramatic change by government in dealing with it?
I can recall back in 1985, when I was a member of parliament, that the then government offered the leadership the option of self-governance for First Nations. They actually rejected it. Because I remember the Prime Minister talking to me personally. He said, I cannot believe they rejected it.
Mr. Ross: Yes. What you are saying is absolutely right. I do not see why, I do not understand why, back then our people rejected a First Nations process, unless it was not a First Nations process. Do you know what I mean? Unless there were all sorts of rules and guidelines so our hands were tied.
The Chair: My understanding was that no rules or guidelines were set up. It was just said, like I can say to you now, Grand Chief Ross, would you like to have self-government for your people, and if so, I am prepared to work with you. Now, you know, whatever comes with it, we have to work this out. But my understanding is that is the way it was offered and it was rejected.
Mr. Ross: If you offered that on the table right now, I would run with it. I would run to the moon with it, and really set it up properly. I would accept your help and everything that you can give. Because my understanding and my thinking is, look, you give me the assistance and the responsibility and the ability to do it the way we want to do it, with planning with our people. We will come back with you in three, four, five years time and show you how far we have come to becoming less burdensome on Canada, and becoming productive, and contributing to this country. We would show you how far we have come every year.
The numbers are starting to pick up in health. Those communities with health centres and control of their own health programs eliminate a number of visitations to the hospital by their band members every year.
You make mistakes but you grow with them. You have got to deal with problems with drugs and alcohol. You have to make decisions on it and move forward, and not push them aside and say "No, they do not happen. Nothing happens here, we are all okay." You cannot take that approach. We have all got to make the changes and move forward with them.
Change is scary. I could walk into my reserve right now with 300 jobs and I would not fill them. Our band members have been brainwashed into being stuck on the reserve. So it is not like you are a hero when you walk in there. They would not know what to do. A lot them would not do it. A lot of them would not go to work, a lot of them would stay for a week, some two weeks, but they would not be there for the long haul which really makes an impact on us.
We have to do it ourselves take our lumps and then take our leaps forward. We have got to do that.
Senator Lang: I just want to ask one question I think to Grand Chief Ross here.
You talked about your custom code, and the fact that you are on a two-year term right now. Is it going to be your recommendation, in conjunction with your First Nation, that you change from two years to four years?
Mr. Ross: Yes, for sure. I think we all want to change, but I think our guys are saying three years. You know, it is a real grind for chiefs and councils. They do not live long. They have heart attacks and stuff like that because it is really hard on them. They look after their own people and they are expected to be in the front lines. However, it gets back to our capacity, and we are real weak.
We want to make changes and we want to stay a little longer so that we can do something. Two years is too short, but we want to make that decision ourselves. We want to come up with something really strong and follow it.
Senator Lang: You said you were reviewing your electoral code?
Mr. Colomb: Yes.
Senator Lang: Or your custom code, sorry. Are you going to stay on the four years?
Mr. Colomb: Yes.
The Chair: Well, colleagues, we have no other questions at the present time.
Hopefully, once you have consulted your people, you will forward their reaction to us, Grand Chief.
Mr. Ross: Sure.
The Chair: We thank you for making your presentation here this morning.
Do you have something that you wanted to say? Are you okay?
Mr. Colomb: I am okay. Just quickly, because of some of the things that have occurred in the past, when we are told there is an opportunity, we question the opportunity. When these opportunities come, we have to ask whose opportunity is that? Who is it for? I can certainly appreciate that we are trying to connect and how we would be able to establish a good working relationship. However, the past will always haunt us. Communication and understanding is the thing we need to put on the table, to be able to establish that working relationship.
The Chair: Well, there is no question that if you are presented with a question of self-governance, there is still a fiduciary responsibility that rests with government.
I think there is a certain amount of fear and mistrust, as you say, because of the past. I have sat on this committee for a lot of years, and I have been in Ottawa for 25 years now, a quarter of a century. I do see a change, but I am not brave enough to say how great that change would be. Minister Ron Irwin in the past, I think, believed that the day had come that the Indian Act should go. I have worked with Minister Jim Prentice, who was also committed.
I think the day will come, but we cannot expect our First Nations people to trust us implicitly as a government or as a people. We have to give you, the leadership, a package that you can go back to your people with because we have created a society of dependency. If we do not show a clear path out of the woods from this dependency, I do not think we will ever get the support of the First Nations people in the country, even though we could conceivably get the trust of the leadership. What we are doing here is baby steps, but we have been taking baby steps as a committee. Hopefully one day, within the near future, we take an adult step. That adult step I see is ridding us of the Indian Act and putting our First Nations people on an equal footing with the rest of the country.
Having said that, I say thank you.
Unfortunately, colleagues, the Keewatin Tribal Council, who was supposed to be next, have run across a problem, they cannot be here and they just sent a note saying they will send a written submission instead.
So are there any other comments from senators? If there are not any, we will adjourn.
The Chair: Senators, our next witness is a representative of the Interlake Reserves Tribal Council, Chief Emery Stagg. Chief Stagg, would you give us a 5 or 10 minute presentation, and then we would like to ask you some questions. How is that?
Chief Emery Stagg, Interlake Reserves Tribal Council: Senators, the Interlake Reserves Tribal Council is composed of seven bands and the majority of members of the tribal council are comfortable with a two-year term. Most of them have Indian Act elections. My own First Nation has had a band custom election process since we came into existence. We have never had an Indian Act election in my community.
In our area, we seem to be having a lot of issues with the election process, but my fellow chiefs of the tribal council are very comfortable with a two-year term.
On the issue of common day election, we are not in support of just any common day election. I do not see a point in having a one-day election in the middle of a fiscal year. If you have elections all through the year, you can always blame the previous guy. In most cases, that is what happens. It creates a lot of division in the communities.
My understanding of the proposal in Manitoba is that a common day election would be at the end of the fiscal year, and terms should start at the beginning of the fiscal year. This way leadership would have a report card of their progress or of how they conduct business on behalf of their First Nation, because it is very crucial that you pick leadership that will have a good report card.
My little community became a separate First Nation in 1978. Right from day one, we adopted the band custom where we make our own rules and we run our own elections. We also implemented, way before Corbière, that we would allow any member of our First Nation to vote, regardless of their residency. We took it further, and we now offer urban voting for people that live off reserve. You have two days to vote, once in the urban areas like Winnipeg and once on the reserve. That gives your members two days to vote in person.
We do not believe in mail-in ballots because that causes a lot of friction. We feel mail-in ballots should be available only outside the Province of Manitoba residents. If you are out of province, let us say in British Columbia, yes, use mail-in ballots.
We feel that there should be some recall mechanisms, some redress within the re-election process.
We also feel that there should be some kind of funding available in order to address off reserve people. There is a misconception about Corbière now, that if you are allowed to vote for your First Nation leadership in the community and off reserve, you are entitled to all the benefits of being on reserve. Every time someone votes for their leadership, they say my money is there too. However, you have to divide into off reserve and on reserve. Corbière is dividing the membership right off the bat.
The tribal council is comfortable with a two-year term. If you have any questions, I will answer your questions.
The Chair: You really emphasized the fact that you would like to see election dates coordinated with the end of the fiscal year. I think that has been brought up before in these hearings.
Senator Peterson: You say you prefer two-year terms. Have you had many occasions of recall or contested elections?
Mr. Stagg: Yes.
Senator Peterson: So then if you are doing that all the time, is there any time for governing, if you are either being contested or challenged? In the two-year period, how can you do the governing that one should if you are always under this cloak of being challenged or contested?
Mr. Stagg: Personally, I have not gone through that. There are a lot of accountability issues brought forward. You try and deal with the issues as best you can. In some cases, there are two or three elections in the community. That is caused, as I say, by not redefining the membership, who is on reserve and off reserve, because everybody that casts a ballot assumes that they are looked after by that First Nation. However, funding is based on on reserve and off reserve.
Senator Peterson: Yes. I was wondering if they are afraid to go beyond two years because of the problems in the past. If it could be structured properly, with an electoral officer and elections conducted fairly, people might have enough faith to say, well, we could go a longer term. There would still be provision for challenge if things were done fraudulently. Do you think there would be any hope of that?
Mr. Stagg: To me, personally, if you have the bad report card and you try and conduct business the next six months, you are going to fail.
If you started at the beginning of the fiscal year, then that past year has a report card. After six months or a year, you could have a review and say, did I pass? If not, then there should be redress on behalf of the community, either for you to continue or not to continue. However, a lot of issues are based on elections happening at any time of the year. It could happen on the tenth month of the year.
Senator Peterson: Have the members actually voted on this issue and have they said that we want two years, or is this leadership saying that we think that is what they want?
Mr. Stagg: Leadership.
Senator Peterson: The people themselves have not marched down and said, we want two years?
Mr. Stagg: That is right.
Senator Peterson: Okay.
Mr. Stagg: Right now, I think most of the communities in the Interlake are receptive to two years. It would be a big change for them to accept three or four years.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: My question was about the four year term as well. How many are there in your tribal council?
Mr. Stagg: Seven.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: So you have approximately 700 people in your community?
Mr. Stagg: Seven hundred? No, we have about 8,000.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: You answered the question already about the community members, how they feel about this two-year term. I am curious. I think you are about the only band that believes two years is enough time to complete the responsibilities that chief and council have for their people. So I am just kind of curious, why do you think that is enough?
Mr. Stagg: I guess if you have problems for three or four years, it would be hell. Do you know what I mean?
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Yes.
Mr. Stagg: If it is four years of progress, you could continue that. That is why I say things should be based on your track record and the way you administer your First Nation.
Senator Dyck: I thank you Chief Stagg. It sounds like in your own First Nation, you have what could be called a customary system of election. You were saying that you have never had on your reserve an election code that was part of the Indian Act?
Mr. Stagg: Correct.
Senator Dyck: So how would you say your code differs? What would be the major differences? Does it work in your opinion? Obviously, it must work better because you have stuck with it.
Mr. Stagg: Well, the people adopted those. We were part of Little Saskatchewan First Nation at one time, which is 60 miles away. When we became separated from that First Nation in 1978, we were given a choice between the two systems. INAC did two presentations, one on Indian Act elections and the other on band custom elections. At that time, because we were part of another First Nation, it was easy to call 25 people for a meeting. That was their first election list, 25 people. So the chief that won had 13 votes and the other guy had 12 votes.
It has to be up to the people that decide in their community. We believed that when we set up our election. All the people said, we will allow people to come in and vote regardless of where they live. We agreed to that, and we still maintain that. When it came time for mail-in ballots, we said no. We will give them two days to vote, once in an urban setting and once on the reserve. That is it. It is always up to the people to decide.
Senator Lang: I am not quite clear on a couple of points. I think Senator Lovelace Nicholas asked how many people were part of the First Nation, and you said 7,000. How many people are part of your First Nation? There are seven reserves; is that not correct?
Mr. Stagg: Yes, seven reserves.
Senator Lang: So how many people are on your reserve?
Mr. Stagg: There are 260 on my reserve.
Senator Lang: For the seven reserves?
Mr. Stagg: There are about 6,000-7,000 people.
Senator Lang: How many people live on reserve versus off reserve?
Mr. Stagg: I would say it is 50-50.
Senator Lang: I want to go back to the question of the longevity, the two years versus the four years. Have any of the six other First Nations, have they gone to four years or are they all two years?
Mr. Stagg: They are all two years. It has been like that for a number of years already, ever since I can remember being chief.
Senator Hubley: A quick question on voter turnout. The percentage of votes, what would the voter turnout be on, on reserve, what percentage approximately?
Mr. Stagg: In my community, it is 100 per cent.
Senator Hubley: As compared to off reserve, what would be the percentage?
Mr. Stagg: No, 100 per cent for the whole community.
Senator Hubley: Both on and off reserve?
Mr. Stagg: Both on and off reserve. Ten years ago, the turnout was not as great, but in the last five years, more and more and more people are voting, because there are other systems that are in place such as the mail-in ballot. There is a problem there with the mail-in ballot system, but that is just my comment on that issue.
Senator Hubley: So you do not have any mail-in ballots. If one of your members lives out of province, they do not have an opportunity to vote; is that correct?
Mr. Stagg: That is where I would use a mail-in ballot.
Senator Hubley: You would use it?
Mr. Stagg: Yes, if it is in another province, but not within the Province of Manitoba. If you are given the option to vote two places, and have an opportunity to vote in an urban setting or into your first nation.
Senator Hubley: The voting age is 18, 19?
Mr. Stagg: Eighteen.
The Chair: Thank you, senators. Thank you, Chief Stagg, for making your presentation. I think you made it quite clear that two years is not a problem with you.
We look forward to any further information you may want to send in. If you have something your people want on the record in regards to this, do not hesitate. We will give you the contacts as to how to contact the committee and it would also form part of the record.
Mr. Stagg: Sure. Thank you.
(The committee adjourned.)