Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Aboriginal Peoples
Issue 8 - Evidence - Meeting of May 26, 2009 - Afternoon
WINNIPEG, Tuesday, May 26, 2009
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples met this day at 1:27 p.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 afternoon. I am Senator Gerry St. Germain of British Columbia. As the chair of the Senate Standing Committee on Aboriginal Peoples, it is a pleasure to welcome all of you here today.
Please allow me to introduce the members of the committee who are present. I start on my left with our deputy chair, Senator Nick Sibbeston from the Northwest Territories. Next to Senator Sibbeston is Senator Elizabeth Hubley from Prince Edward Island. On my right is Senator Lillian Dyck from Saskatchewan. Next to Senator Dyck is Senator Robert Peterson from Saskatchewan. Next to Senator Peterson is Senator Sandra Lovelace Nicholas from New Brunswick.
Honourable senators, elders, guests and members of the audience, our mandate on this committee is to examine legislation and matters relating to the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada generally.
On April 1 of this year, the committee decided to launch a study to examine issues related to the 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 in 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 towards finding better ways to help First Nations' communities to determine a better governance relationship for the citizens and their government.
We have today before us newly re-elected Chief Terrance Nelson. He is once again before us, this time as the representative of his own community, Roseau River Anishinabe First Nation.
You will recall that he was with us yesterday as the representative of Treaty One First Nations.
Chief Nelson, I gather that today you want to talk to us more specifically about Roseau River and the happenings there.
Terrance Nelson, Chief, Roseau River Anishinabe First Nation: Good afternoon once again. Thank you for yesterday's time, and today again more specifically about Roseau River in regard to the elections there and the effect upon Roseau River.
I apologize for not having a written presentation this afternoon. I spent quite some time after the election on Friday doing the written presentation that I presented yesterday on the Treaty One.
I have appeared previously before the standing Senate committee, I think prior to the presentation I made yesterday. I think the last time I was invited to come and present to the committee was in November of 2006, about two-and-a- half years ago, and the issue at that time was specific claims. I am not sure who was on the committee at that time.
The reality of what was presented two-and-a-half years ago, the effect and I guess the combination of what I presented then about the economics of settling land claims, specific land claims and the effect upon our communities, certainly is the issue that was presented again yesterday with regard to the economic situation in our community — the fact that we have 77-per-cent unemployment.
The effect upon our community is not so much an issue of governance. The government of our community has actually been very stable since 2003. This was my fifth election on Friday a little over four years. I have been in an election four times in four years. It was supposed to be my fourth election on March 2, 2009 and we were returned again on March 2.
However, one of the things that happened with Roseau River was that, back in 1991, our community went through a process where we tried to remove ourselves from the Indian Act system. That was after many years of operating under section 74 of the Indian Act, under two-year terms. What we found with the section 74 Indian Act system was, of course, that the community elected had a democratic election. However, we were electing essentially elected dictatorships, basically, with all the power in the community. There were no checks and balances; there was no way for the community to remove a chief or a council member. For whatever reason, there was nothing. The only power to remove a chief and council or a council member was with the minister of Indian affairs.
Going to the custom side of the Indian Act where the First Nation could, in fact, institute its own election act, using a custom system, we examined our cultural history, our history of the reserve and how we looked at elections and what elections were.
As I said yesterday, chiefs were not powerful in traditionally Ojibway reservations. They were not offices of power, basically they were offices of service. Essentially, if you were the chief, you were the poorest person in the community. You had to give away everything.
Under the Indian Act in the British colonization system, they elevated leaders within each community. The way they elevated them was that they allowed them to be the only ones that the government would deal with. All the rest of the people were essentially non-entities. Nobody could go to the government or ever ask the government for anything. They could never approach the government.
So this system was in place for many years. The Indian Act was not about rights; it was about making sure that the government controlled the First Nations. The election system was just part of that Indian Act system that controls the First Nations.
We tried to get out of that section. In 1991, we put in our own constitution and our own election act. In fact, several chiefs have been removed under the custom. Lawrence Henry was removed by the custom council. Ed Hayden was removed by custom council, he was a chief. There was a lot of pressure on many different chiefs and councils since 1991 to the point where it became an issue and we ended up with a custom council. We put a custom council in place in 1991. That was supposed to be our check and balance. That was actually supposed to be our, I am kind of joking about it, but it is kind of like our senators, our guys who were supposed to be the little bit of a check and balance for the elected officials, to question some of the things that were going on with the chief and council and to be able to call to them and say, what are you doing? Are you responding to the community?
It is very difficult in a community that has 77 per cent unemployment, with over 400 people unemployed and a lot of people on welfare. They have no income other than what comes from the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs. This is a system where the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs controls a lot of the economy of the community.
We end up, as chief and council, not being responsible to the people themselves but more in line with being responsible to the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs and to the funding, and making sure that the funding comes in. We end up making more reports than anything. The whole buzz word in the Canadian economy or the Canadian system, the media, is about accountability of the chiefs and councils.
If you become a chief and council, you get to control who gets a house, who does not get a house, who gets welfare, who does not get welfare, who gets post-secondary education, who does not get post-secondary education. As the administrator for the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs funding, you control a lot that goes into the community.
So what we wanted to do in our community was to try and balance that out, balance the powers of that chief and council. As with any good intentions, it can be corrupted. We ended up with a custom council or a group that was unelected, where family representatives could, in fact, hold a meeting any time they felt like it. Because the custom council was not funded, there was no financing for the custom council, there were no monies for them, it went into abeyance. Then all of a sudden, a few of the people in the community ended up picking that piece of authority up as custom council, to be able to remove chiefs and councils.
So we ended up with a system of unelected custom council representatives removing chiefs and councils.
As I said yesterday, to be a chief and to be a council member means a guaranteed income. You are elected. How can they remove you? How can you be accountable to your own people?
So this is what you are talking about in terms of elections. There are even worse systems that are evident in the Province of Manitoba. In 1999, some elders came to see me. We were doing some ceremonies in Winnipeg here at the Friendship Centre. They were elders from a different community. This lady was over 70 years old. About ten or nine- and-a-half years ago, they came and saw us, offered us tobacco and asked, can you help us? They were under a custom system. The community was Buffalo Point. It is an Ojibway community, same as we are. They are our neighbours; they are basically our relatives.
They ended up with a chief for life. How that system got in place was a matter of dispute. But this chief for life basically gets all the money from the Government of Canada, cannot be removed, does not have elections.
The lady that came to us is now over 80 years old and has never voted. So Florence Kakaygeesick came and offered us tobacco and said, can you help us?
We had the two council members draft up a BCR, band council resolution. There were three members there — two council members and a chief. They were supposedly put in place for life, but the chief was the only one who could remove the council members. The Department of Indian and Northern Affairs recognized that.
The two council members wrote a band council resolution, sent it in to the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, and requested elections. Denied.
A quorum of chief and council asked for elections. Denied. Therefore, this community still does not have elections.
On the other hand, a group that is Dakota Teepee did in fact get elections called for by the federal government, by protests of the tribal members. They also had a chief-for-life system, almost.
It really depends a lot on whether the government likes you or not, unfortunately. That is the reality, that is the truth. If the government likes you, they will back you up.
Buffalo Point has cottages rented out to non-native people, leased out to non-native people for pretty substantial dollars. The only ones that have the control of the money are the chief and council. They have no elective system. The government supports this, sends money to the First Nation. There is no elected accountability. It is a chief-for-life system.
So in looking at these kind of things, this is what Roseau River looked at. We want a custom system, but balanced, balancing the powers of chief and council, not giving a section 74 that would end up with just the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs having the oversight over our chief and council. This is a British system of colonization. This is a system that allowed the British to control communities. You do not have to deal with 1,200 people, you only have to deal with five. We get $6.4 million, on average about $6.4 million in Department of Indian and Northern Affairs funding.
The way that Roseau River is treated, we get a lot less funding. The reason why we get a lot less funding on average, $803 million comes in through the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, Manitoba region in the Province of Manitoba. If you divided it equally among the 127,000 First Nation treaty Indians in the Province of Manitoba, Roseau River probably gets around 27 per cent of the average funding.
In terms of education, let me give you a prime example of what this means. In education, Roseau River gets $4,140 per student. That is our tuition per student for Ginew School. The Province of Manitoba, operating through the Frontier School Division, operates several different schools in the Province of Manitoba, gets over $15,000 per student from the same source of revenue, the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs.
We challenged the department on that and said, how can you do this in terms of accountability or fairness to First Nations? If, on one hand, the non-native school board, the white guys can get $15,000 no problem from the department of Indian affairs, they put in a bill and get $15,000. The First Nations, we get $4,140 for our children.
I think it is in the paper today about the unfairness of our schools and whatnot. I realize that those are not decisions made by the senators; however, as influencing people, I would hope that you would take up the cause of some of these people. I certainly have done as much as I can for people like the Buffalo Point people. I have certainly challenged the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs on a lot of the inadequacies and the lack of accountability in regard to what is going on in the department and the unfairness of it all. But as a chief, I am probably considered to be the most radical.
The Chair: I do not know why you say that.
Mr. Nelson: Because of national days of action and everything that I have done — been to Iraq, been to Washington D.C. on oil issues. You know, I have done lots of things, blockades, protests, everything that I have done.
So what happens now? During the last election on March 2, there was a small unelected group of people who said they ran a separate election. The people in the community very clearly said they wanted everybody on one ballot. We ran a general election, we got elected. The same chief and council were elected four times in a row.
Indian and Northern Affairs Minister Strahl said he got word that there were two elections. I cannot stop people from sending letters to the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs. On one hand, the department has consistently ignored and denied the rights of Buffalo Point people to have an election, in spite of a band council resolution from a quorum of the council asking for elections. On the other hand, Roseau River and communities that are so-called agitators or whatever you want to call them, I am sure there are other words, adjectives that are used in front of my name in certain circles. The reality is that the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs wrote a letter to us on March 25, 2009, saying:
Dear Mr. Nelson: This is in response to your letter of February 25, 2009 regarding the 2009 Roseau River Anishinabe First Nation election. Indian and Northern Affairs Canada received reports from two different sources each indicating that the Roseau River Anishinabe First Nation election occurred on Monday, March 2, 2009. The report further indicated that you and Mr. Felix Antoine were both elected as chief with two competing groups claiming to be the elected council of the First Nation. Due to the aforementioned reports, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada is not in a position to draw conclusions regarding the validity and legitimacy of either electoral, as the First Nation is governed by band custom leadership selection. On March 6, 2009, department officials attended a community meeting where they were informed that the First Nation members are taking steps to address the current impasse. This is an encouraging development and I am confident you will continue to work towards a resolution. I thank you for keeping me informed. Sincerely, Chuck Strahl.
So the election results on Friday were pretty well consistent. Five elections, I have been elected five times in a row.
So I guess one of the things we are saying is that the oversight by the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs on 633 First Nations across Canada cannot continue. If you want good governance, well, Treaty One stated to you yesterday that we are prepared to do a pilot project. We are prepared to look at a system of having seven First Nations elect on the same day, appointing electoral officers, looking at a system of checks and balances to ensure there is accountability. An ombudsman reports back to the community on dollars that are received from the federal government. But the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs right now, what it is doing to Roseau River, it is not just looking after the government funding, it is demanding that we report to them on our own source revenues, that the First Nation must now report everything to the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs as if the department was the holder of these dollars.
Our land lease monies is our own money. Our gaming revenues that we generate for ourselves with the Province of Manitoba is our money. Yet the department demands to take a look at that. Tobacco tax rebate dollars that we receive in partnership with the province, the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs wants to know how much we are getting for those. Any source of revenues that we have to Highway 6, the urban reserve accounts and anything else like that, the department wants to know what is going on there.
The reason they are doing that is that they are cutting back. On every dollar that we can get for ourselves and generate for ourselves, the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs now cuts us, gives us less. That is what they are trying to do to OCN. That is what they are trying to do to the southeast, to their casino operations. Anything that the First Nations can actually progress and move ahead on, the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs is trying to cut back their responsibility to the First Nation.
So critically important to what you are studying and looking at is what I stated to you in November 2006. Roseau River is in line. We have negotiated with the federal government on a $100-million settlement for the 1903 illegal surrender.
We have now concluded a verbal agreement with Ryan Morand, the federal negotiator. On December 5, 2006, we came to a conclusion that the negotiations are finished, that we would agree on a $100-million settlement. The federal negotiator said they would go back to their principals to try and push that. We would take it to our First Nation and we would try and push that as a settlement for the 1903 surrender.
In 1903, one of our community members was shot and killed, removed from all sections of land that were taken from us. The government said in 1871, sign this treaty, allow the Crown to have immigration and access to your traditional territory. The Crown promises, with the use of force if we have to, to protect your reservation lands. We agree that you will get 160 acres per family of five. In 138 years later from 1871, the Crown still has not completed that promise of 160 acres per family of five. So you ask us to be patient? We are the radicals 138 years later, we are the renegades, we are the ones that have to do the national day of action just to have the Crown complete what they are legally responsible for. The Crown promised us 160 acres of family per five and said your reservations would be yours forever. Forever did not last very long; 32 years later they come and get 62, they get 60 per cent, over 60 per cent of our reservation. They take it, they forcefully take it from us. They shoot one of our tribal members to make sure that they get off the land. They take the most, the valuable lands, the most, the best lands. They leave us with the worst flood- prone lands.
We just came through another flood. The year 1997 was the worst flood of the century. We ended up with a $2.4- million clawback from the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs on our housing. The white guys got up to $500,000 per house. We got nowhere near that. We have 170 houses in that flood plain. We have mould in our community. We have children with asthma. They have puffers and things. If anybody else ever had this kind of health problems, there would be a national emergency declared. First Nations are currently going through this in many different communities.
The economics of this is what we are talking about. If you do not deal with the economics, if you simply allow the committee to just simply talk about governance as a separate issue, totally in isolation of the economics, they are doomed to fail.
No system, regardless, is free of dissension or opposition. When I look at Parliament, I see lots of people yelling and screaming at each other. So I say to you that whatever you are proposing, please keep in mind that we are people, too. I mean, we will fight with each other. To expect us to be all one and nice to each other forever because we get one governing system is not realistic.
I thank you for your time. I would ask you, please, on behalf of the elders who gave me tobacco in 1999, could you please do something about their right to vote? As women here, I was asked the question about gender equality yesterday. I have women over in Buffalo Point who are my relatives that have never voted in their life. Why is that? Thank you.
The Chair: Chief, the first question I have to ask — I have worked with you and other members of this committee you are familiar with — we are looking at the electoral process, the government aspect. I realize there is a direct connection between that and the economic viability of communities. I do not think we are oblivious to that. But do you feel that by us studying this particular issue and making recommendations like we dealt with specific claims in the same manner, that we are trying to do this the same way? We did a study on economic development and it was an issue that — the vice chair is here, Senator Sibbeston, and it is a good study — I think really addresses the problems. In the recommendations that went back, it was named a hand-up, not a hand-out. I think that the more I listen to First Nations across the country, this is what everybody wants — they want to get out of this paternalistic web that has been woven by INAC, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada.
You said earlier that Treaty One would be prepared to work with us on a pilot project. I think that is really encouraging. But I do not want to mislead you or the First Nations' people to think that we can really come up with an economic solution. Have we still got your support, in spite of the fact that we know things have to be done? And these land claims like the 1903 surrender, the TLEs, treaty land entitlements, and all the various other aspects in this province should be dealt with sooner rather than later. Do you think that Treaty One would still be prepared to work with us on this initiative alone?
Mr. Nelson: On a governance issue, definitely. I think it is something that needs to happen. Certainly, the community of Roseau River, I would support it, and I would certainly ask our people who are looking for accountability. The First Nation community of Roseau River cannot, by itself, finance all of the various things we need to get done as far as providing information back to the community members constantly, like providing them with more than just an audit report every single year. We need basically some place where people can go and say, I want to know what happened to this money. So they should get that information, and they should have an answer.
Certainly, I cannot tell everybody that I am available. I work 16-hour days, and I work seven days a week. I cannot tell people that I am going to be available for more time to go house to house and tell everybody. So we need an overall system that basically says, here is how much money we get from the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, here is where the dollars went. We need a system that people can go to and say, yes, I am confident that this is the right information.
Currently, right now what is happening with my community is that certain people who are unemployed are obviously angry and justifiably angry about being in a system that does not seem to respond to their needs. We cannot respond to their needs because how much money do we have? On average, if you cut all of the dollars that they have right now in government funding, each community member, if it was divided by 2,200 tribal members, our funding would come up to about $3,000 per man, woman and child per year. So how do you live on that? That is for your education, your health, everything.
The Chair: If I may ask, are you saying that when we make this recommendation, as well as a chief electoral officer and possibly an ombudsman, there should be an auditor general process, that if people feel that they want information financially, it would be available through this process?
Mr. Nelson: Personally, I support that. And I certainly support the peoples' right to know what is going on with their dollars. I have never once, in six years of being chief, issued houses or said who is going to get welfare and who does not get welfare. Those are administrative matters. I think it is critically important that chiefs and councils not be responsible for certain areas of this. This includes inside, there has to be a model for governance that is accountable for all dollars. But I certainly do not expect to go down the road of saying that the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs is going to oversee this. If that is the route you are going, count me out because there is no way that, in the last 100 or so years, if the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs was so good, we would not be in this mess we are in today. If we are going to create something, let us create something that actually works.
I think that tribal councils do work. I think that Treaty One would be a model. It certainly has to be better than what we have today.
The Chair: I think you are in friendly territory in regards to a question of who should be in charge. What is happening out there is a nightmare. It is being run by a department out of Ottawa.
Senator Dyck: You were talking about the Buffalo Point First Nation having a chief that is there for life. Would that be a First Nation that has a traditional or hereditary system of governance, as it were?
Mr. Nelson: The chief is non-native.
Senator Dyck: The chief is not native?
Mr. Nelson: No. The people themselves do not have any access to their own lands. The people have asked, they occupied the band office, they went for a court junction on them, and the RCMP came in with dogs and guns and tear gas and the whole bit and removed those people. They had no weapons of any kind, of course, the protesters. But they also had a legitimate band council resolution from a quorum of the council asking the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs for an election. That is all they asked for.
Senator Dyck: I find the whole situation not only incredible, but it is very confusing. Did Buffalo Point First Nation, prior to 1999, have a system of election that could be seen as more acceptable, or this happened in 1999?
Mr. Nelson: I think the senators should ask the people of Buffalo Point to speak for themselves. I speak as a concerned person and that individuals should be allowed to hold their government accountable.
Senator Dyck: One quick question. I think we have heard over and over the last day-and-a-half about difficulties working with Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, and it sounds like the department oversees everything. It seems to have obviously the ultimate authority, and oftentimes does not really benefit individual communities. What do you think should be done to Indian affairs to make them more accountable to the community, rather than just having power over the community?
Mr. Nelson: As I said yesterday, in 1994, Ron Irwin tried to dismantle Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. One of the things we need to do, if we are going to succeed in dismantling the department, is we must make them irrelevant. By that I mean, the economics of our community means that we should not, that the money we get from the federal government should be a payment. It should not be federal funding; it should not be taxpayer money. Because the 10.7 million acres of land that is Treaty One, if we had a share of our own, wealth of our own lands, we would not need money from the Government of Canada.
The original intent of the treaty, when the people had their property, when they were owners of the land, they could make their own living. They did not require somebody else's hand-out. A hand-up and a hand-out, basically it does not matter what kind of words they use, the reality is that the government does control the economy of the First Nation. Section 89 of the Indian Act makes a person on an Indian reserve legally incompetent, in the same category as an alien enemy, a child, an intoxicated person. That is section 89 of the Indian Act. Check it out.
The Chair: When was this occupation of Buffalo Point?
Mr. Nelson: It was 1999, about 10 years ago.
The Chair: Ten years ago, and nothing has been done?
Mr. Nelson: Nothing has been done. We tried everything that we could. The American Indian movement leader Dennis Banks and Clyde Bellecourt were meeting in Winnipeg in December 1999 and they said, let us go and occupy it. Let us go take aim in there and throw the guy out.
I had asked for a little bit of time to see if I could work with this. I am vice-chairman of the American Indian movement out of Minneapolis. So on the grand governing council, I am the vice-chair. And I think that we asked not to have an occupation. Basically, we wanted to work and see if we could resolve the issue peacefully. But we had RCMP with guns.
The Chair: This is bizarre, to say the least.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: You had mentioned earlier that there is a chief and council for life, or is it just a chief and a council?
Mr. Nelson: Just a chief.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Was a referendum ever held to get rid of this guy?
Mr. Nelson: With respect to the people in the community and even the band membership, I cannot speak to everything that is going on in Buffalo Point. The reality is that the people have tried, they have done everything they can to try and resolve the issue peacefully, had occupied their offices. And I am not faulting. The economics of Buffalo Point is probably better than most communities. The reality is that you can have a benevolent dictatorship, but you still have a dictatorship. The reality is that the people want a democracy.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: You mentioned monies coming into the community from the federal government. Do you know approximately how much you get for each person?
Mr. Nelson: For my community?
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Yes.
Mr. Nelson: There is $803 million in the Manitoba region from the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs. The north gets the most if you were to average it out. During the 1990 Oka crisis, Brian Mulroney made a statement that Ottawa designated $13,500 per man, woman and child for First Nations. Stephen Harper made pretty well the same statement not too long ago, and was again supported by then-Minister Jim Prentice that there was $16,500.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Per person?
Mr. Nelson: Per man, woman and child designated at the Ottawa level. Designated, it does not mean we get it.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Yes, I understand that.
Mr. Nelson: When we break down the numbers from my community, you are looking at about $3,000 per person, per man, woman and child.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: That is being shifted through from the federal government, to Indian and Northern Affairs, to the community. It ends up to be $3,000 per person.
Mr. Nelson: That is including even our tuitions and everything else like that, to be divided. We pay $5,000 to send a child off to public school in Dominion City. So, already, we are way beyond the $3,000 per person.
One of the things you look at, in the media, it is very clear that the taxpayer is saying, look at all that money that we give to these people, $9 billion, $10 billion, $11 billion, and it never gets to us. But the reality is that most Canadians get the same services and benefits in health.
If a person gets sick in Northern Manitoba, say in Norway House or someplace like that, and is flown to Winnipeg for CAT scans and cancer or something like that, or is dying, at the end of the day, in six months or eight months of treatment, if $50,000 has been spent on him, that goes into the bill. And the taxpayer says, look at that Indian, he got $50,000. But did he actually get the money? Of course not. It went into, the nurses get paid, the doctors get paid, the janitors get paid. You know, everybody gets paid, everything, taxi drivers, ambulance service, everybody gets paid. But the Indian gets the blame. He says, look at those Indians, with all the adjectives, they are getting all this free money.
The reality is that all Canadians get dollars from our economy. On GDP being close to $36,000 per man, woman and child, per-capita GDP, if you bring in the resource and all of the revenues generated from the resource area, you are probably looking at somewhere close to $20,000 per man, woman and child. That is subsidizing the well-being of every Canadian. So we just want a share of our own resources.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Yes. What if there was no Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, and this money flowed straight from the federal government into each community now, would that not be better?
Mr. Nelson: I would support that. I would say go ahead and send it directly to the people. There used to be a family allowance, but now it's a child tax credit. Every 20th of the month, when the money goes to individuals, there is no Department of Indian and Northern Affairs coming along saying, how did you spend that money? Did you spend any money on gambling or did you buy any beer with it or anything else like that? Every 20th of the month, it goes to the people. There is no accountability on it. They are just supposedly spending it on their children.
If you really want to be fair, recommend they send it directly to the people, bypass the chief and council, bypass all the PTOs and everybody else. If Brian Mulroney and Stephen Harper made these statements of $16,000 per man, woman and child, well, send it to the people then.
Senator Hubley: We have been discussing the two- or four-year term. The fixed date was brought up this morning. If that were to come about, it may be more convenient to have that date somewhere near the end of the fiscal year. Do you have any comment on that?
Mr. Nelson: Not really. As I say, the more we not put roadblocks or little bumps in the road in front of us, and the less we have, we give authority to the government and other people in the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs — if it is in May, it is in May.
What I would like to see, first of all, as Treaty One, have a constitution, have a concept. Eventually, if people want to take a look at this, or try and join this, they opt in. It is better to have something there held out for them in saying this can and may help you, than to force them into something.
Senator Hubley: I think the thinking was that if it was on the accountability side, that if the election was held in, say, between the fiscal end of the year, that the incoming chief might be held accountable for some of the accountings of the previous chief. So that if it was done at the end of the fiscal year, April, May, it might make for a smoother transition.
Mr. Nelson: I would think that the Government of Canada should do that. Let them try first. If they can show us that it works for them, then it would be good.
Senator Hubley: Fixed dates?
Mr. Nelson: Yes.
Senator Hubley: We do that.
Mr. Nelson: Also, if you do not have a dictatorship in Canada, you are supposed to have a Senate that does a bit of checks and balances, you have an auditor general, you have other things that should, and you have a court system that basically can review some of these things, and you have inquiries. I do not have a problem with us doing that, as long as people do not all of a sudden say, are the First Nations not worse than the government? I have not yet accepted any brown envelopes.
Senator Hubley: You also talked about the balancing between the chief and council, a balance of responsibilities there. I was just looking in my notes. I am not sure if perhaps you might recall yourself, to balance the power between the council and the chief?
Mr. Nelson: I was saying that, under the Indian Act system and under our current system, because we have such a high unemployment rate, and the people are so totally dependent upon social services or the services provided through chief and council, that the chief and council become basically almost an absolute power within the community. I think that cannot continue. I think there has to be a system whereby people can have a job, an income that is not dependent on chief and council.
Senator Peterson: You mentioned something about specific land claims. What is the status of that in your band now?
Mr. Nelson: Maybe I will go back a bit to the November 22 presentation to the Senate, in 2006. We had gone through the ICC, Indian Claims Commission, probably the longest claim in ICC history.
On December 7, 2007, the ICC released its decision recommending to the government that they, in fact, negotiate a settlement with Roseau River.
To his credit, Minister Strahl, appointed a federal negotiator within, by April, and we were in negotiation in April. We went through a process. We hired, on our side, very good negotiators to make sure that we went through the process.
By December 5, we had come to a conclusion of a $100-million settlement, verbally. We shook hands on it, in this very hotel.
And now, it is unfortunately in the bureaucracy, it is in the system. Generally, it may take quite some time for the federal negotiator to be able to go through the system, to go through its principals and everything else like that in Ottawa, to be able to come up with a written offer. I am relying on a number of people in Ottawa to hopefully push that through faster and get us a written offer.
We have to go through a referendum accepting the offer. So to drop that money into the bank, it could be a good six months, a year, hopefully, if all went well.
Senator Peterson: So, we are just talking administration now? You have agreed on the number. The number has been established, $100 million.
Mr. Nelson: Yes.
Senator Peterson: So what do they have to do? What more is there to do, other than put in a proposal to you and say, this is the number, we have all agreed upon it, do we agree again? And then do you have to then take it to your people and they have to approve it too?
Mr. Nelson: Our people very clearly will approve it, mostly, it is a good settlement and I think we have done a good job on our end of things.
The federal negotiator, before he came to make the verbal offer to us here on December 5, would have had to have gone to all of his principals in various departments in Ottawa to be able to make the verbal offer.
Senator Peterson: Yes.
Mr. Nelson: But the bureaucracy being the bureaucracy does have to make a career out of it first before it gets to be a written offer.
The Chair: I have one question of you, Chief Nelson. The AMC, Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, are working on a proposal in regards to elections. We have discussed with you, with great enthusiasm from our side, a pilot project. Do you think this would conflict if we were to do this? You know, the machinations of First Nations' politics here better than we will ever know it. My understanding is, it is anticipated that the draft template of a custom election code will be developed by mid-2009, and that the Indian Act First Nation committees would be in a position to hold a referendum on the acceptance of their own custom election code by late 2009. A collective decision on implementation of a common election date and extension of term could be made by early 2010.
I do not want to put Treaty One in an untenable position. So as the chair, I am seeking your guidance based on this information. You most likely knew this, but I figured that we should bring it up at this time, so that senators are aware of what seems to be coming down the pipe.
Mr. Nelson: I would like to be clear in terms of my recommendation yesterday. My written recommendation from Treaty One was that in making reference to the FAI, framework agreement initiative, process, that the FAI process involve the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs and the bureaucrats, and that is a go-nowhere process. I do not want to speak against the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, but there are 64 first chiefs in there. A smaller group of seven chiefs with Treaty One on a pilot project is more likely. We will probably see quicker success and maybe also it could spread quickly to the other treaty councils. As I said, you need to show them that this is viable, that this is a good process. I do not want to go through another FAI process and $55 million later say that we have nothing to show.
The Chair: Thank you Chief Nelson for your appearance here today. I think the knowledge that you have shared will help us in the files, and better understand the challenges of our First Nations' people. I have worked with you in the past and I look forward to working with you in your next tenure as chief of Roseau River. And good luck.
Mr. Nelson: You are stuck with me for two more years.
The Chair: I know, sir. Regardless, you keep the job interesting. Without you, I would most likely quit. You are a challenge.
While we await the arrival of our next witness, I would like to mention a man who has contributed greatly to the First Nations' community, Elmer Courchene. Elmer has joined us today. I would ask Elmer to stand up because he has done such great work for First Nations' people.
Colleagues, we are going to continue now with an open mike for 35 to 40 minutes, prior to our next witness appearing. I will call first on Phyllis Sutherland, Leah Stevenson and Kelvin Chicago. I will also call on Linda Stevenson. There will be four of you. What about Tommy Keesick?
I want to welcome you. Time is going to be our biggest enemy because we have to be in Dauphin tonight, but I am going to give each of you five minutes, and I will hold you to the five minutes.
Ms. Sutherland, I would ask you to start.
Phyllis Sutherland, as an individual: I am from Peguis Reserve.
One of my biggest concerns with the band elections are the mail-in ballots. We know it is happening. People are buying these votes. We have heard of people buying them for $20, giving them to whomever, and then they are brought out to the reserve. People are bringing in bags of ballots. If people are given mail-in envelopes, why are they being allowed to carry in ballots?
People are being sent misinformation, that live out of province, off the reserve, have no idea what is happening on our reserve. They are voting on this misinformation. They are believing what they are reading.
The chief is the only one with the mailing list of names and people. He is the only one with access, the present chief. This is how all the misinformation is getting out.
Most of our off-reserve members do not have a clue what is going on, on our reserve. And it is sad to say that is who is running our reserve right now. It was voted in by off reserve. So I am completely against what is happening with the mail-in ballots at the present time.
We have taken our concerns to INAC. They fell on deaf ears. It is frustrating trying to deal with government at that level. They tell us, well, it is up to the present chief and council, and we feel powerless as an ordinary band member to do anything. We have no power. It all goes back to them. You could go back to them and talk until you are blue in the face. It does not do any good. As a matter of fact, you are fired for speaking out.
Right now on our reserve, we are living under a dictatorship where people are being fired for speaking out on what they believe in.
Presently, our reserve is being ruled by one chief and two council. They have the quorum to do what they please, and they use that power whenever they want. The other two councillors are powerless. They are left out of the loop. They cannot even access information. The other workers are being told not to give information to these two council members. And it is frustrating trying to get information out that you need because you cannot get it, it is locked up.
I realize our chief is here but I want to have my say.
I was fired in April. I was on the school board for 24 years. He wanted to go to the electorate, before that it was appointed. That was fine. I ran. I got in. And then in April, I got a letter signed from the chief and two councillors that I did not fit the qualifying criteria because I did not meet it. So I had to vacate my seat. That is the kind of leadership we are living under.
I guess what I am really scared of is, if we go to the four year, it is fine if we have a leadership that is going to be there for their people, but if it is a leadership that is not there for the people and he is there to get whatever money he can out of the reserve, then we are in real trouble.
Because right now, according to our reserve, by the vote that took place on the reserve, we should have had a different chief but it was all brought in by the outside voters. So that is something that is really going to have to be looked at.
The Chair: You have done a great job and you have explained your situation, and I think we will now go to the next speaker.
Senators, we will have our question period after we have heard from Leah Stevenson.
Leah Stevenson, as an individual: I am from Peguis First Nation. I have lived there the last 23 years of my life, and I have been a witness to the old leadership and the new leadership that it is in now.
Personally, I have seen a lot of changes within, with the new leadership. It is not a personal thing for me. I feel my peoples' rights are being violated. This past election, I felt that the mail-in ballots were misused to gain leadership.
Currently, we have an appeal in process, and we feel that the government is not accommodating our people the way we feel they should because of our land claim settlement. My own personal view is that the government is favouring the new chief, because our former chief was very outspoken. He was not afraid to take his people to those offices and protest for what he felt the people deserved. He was an excellent leader. He made us proud of who we were as a people. It was not him slandering someone else to gain favouritism or power.
That is what I feel in my heart to be true.
For your record, this past election we had 641 mail-in ballots that were questionable due to the fact they were picked up the following morning after the polls closed. It was stated in the Indian Act that the mail-in ballots were to be in the possession of the electoral officer prior to the closing of the polls, and that did not happen. They were not picked up from the mail until the following morning.
The people of the reserve wanted the votes counted right after the polls had closed. Unfortunately, this decision was made without the consultation of our people. Chief Hudson took it upon himself to make that decision for the people, along with his electoral officer, Bob Norton, who I believe is related to the chief and is therefore not neutral.
The people had asked for the ballots to be counted right after the polls closed. We went as far as even having a petition signed by 300 members. This was done on short notice. It was forwarded to a council member and we had heard nothing back on it.
When they were asked about that, I had not heard it myself but I am just going by hearsay. It was a decision that was made by the chief. And I will not ramble on about that anymore.
Anyway, there was a discrepancy between the number of mail-in ballots that were received. The numbers were 641 mail-in ballots received at Hudson post office, 179 drop box received in Winnipeg, 70 at the community hall. In total, 890 ballots were to be counted.
At the end of counting the mail-in ballots, a total of 1,210 mail-ins were counted. So there was a question about 320 votes — where did they come from?
These are the kind of things that are being looked into. I am really glad that I had this opportunity to come before you and speak, and to make known what is happening in our community.
Due to the large amount of land claim settlement that our people are about to receive, I feel that this land claim settlement is very important to our people and, therefore, is going to affect the future generations of our children. I am speaking out publicly because I feel this is very important to my kids. I am afraid for this money to be put into the wrong hands and to be misused because, as a person of the community, I see that happening right now. I do not like to name names or to grumble about things not going my way, but I really feel our peoples' rights are being trampled.
I am so sorry, I had stuff written down, but I am just talking from our heart right now.
We also feel our membership code is being misused. Apparently there has been some question about off-reserve members being added to the membership list. We even had a comment from Burke Ratte stating how many people have been added to the membership list.
The Chair: I have to —
Ms. Stevenson: I understand you have to interrupt me; I am sorry. I could go on and on, but I just want it known that I am of no relation to Chief Louis Stevenson, our former chief. I want that to be known to you because I am not speaking out because of favouritism; it is because of what I feel in my heart. Meegwitch.
The Chair: That is fine, that is good. That is why we wanted to have an open mike session. Kelvin Chicago, five minutes, sir.
Kelvin Chicago, as an individual: I am from Lac des Mille Lacs First Nation, which consists of 530 band members. I am the only resident of this particular First Nation. I have built my own home, and I have no ties to Indian and Northern Affairs Canada or any other First Nation council of any kind. I am strictly an independent.
I am here today in the capacity of speaking on behalf of Treaty Three grassroots coalition group. This group was formed last year in May and, of course, is also part of Manitoba, so I think we have Treaty Three extension to Manitoba about a mile-and-a-half.
Our coalition group was formed strictly on the basis that we had strong concerns regarding accountability and transparency. We came out with some recommendations which were given to our Grand Chief. We have done some other issues such as giving the recommendations to the chiefs of Treaty Three, which consists of 27 First Nations.
Some of the chiefs may have received this documentation, some of them may not have. We sent it to the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs. We sent the recommendations to the Auditor General. We have sent them to some lobbyists, these groups that portray themselves as people advocating for grassroots people. Somewhere down the line, our voices were not being heard. That is the reason why the Treaty Three Grassroots Coalition Group was formed, so we can have a voice and we want to be heard.
Without our group, our voices would not be heard. We strongly believe that. But we want to be heard and we are going to be heard.
Today, I have brought the recommendations. We have heard a lot of, how would you call it, sad stories. But I have not heard of any kind of answers, the solutions to these problems. We came up with solutions. We are not saying these are the solutions, but we are saying there is something here that we believe can help in resolving some of our difficulties we are having as grassroots Anishinabe. I have full intentions of giving only one copy to you guys.
I have another friend at the other end of the table here that can use up my extra two minutes.
The Chair: There is nothing greater than a speaker who speaks his mind quickly. I will now go to Tommy Keesick.
Tommy Keesick, as an individual: I am from the Grassy Narrows First Nation, otherwise known as Asubpeeschoseewagong Anishinabe.
First of all, I want to thank the Senate here to make it possible for us to be heard. I also want you to know that I was a chief back in 1974. I heard somebody else here say he was a radical. We occupied Anishinabe Park to voice out these concerns you are hearing today. That was 35 years ago, and we still see these things today. What is going on? I almost used the word what the hell is going on, but forgive me. Excuse me for that.
As I said, I was chief at that time. I was also the youngest chief at that time ever to be elected. I also was the youngest chief ever to be impeached by my own people because of my actions.
The Government of Canada, the Government of Ontario was not known quite at that time. I actually know that the chief and council did not hold any power in the eyes of the government. Still today, they do not have any power to accommodate the wishes of the people they are supposed to be representing.
I fully agree with these people. I do not have anything else to add. But we have 1,250 people on our reserve today. Of those people, 623 are living on reserve. These are the only people who are allowed to vote. We have some 183 people living here in Winnipeg, some in Kenora, some in Thunder Bay, even some in Vancouver.
Now, the thing is, every time an election comes about, only the people on reserves are allowed to vote even though we had made countless efforts to say, what about those people living outside the reserve? The chief and council — as I mentioned, I was a chief and council before. We get these people living off reserve; their share of the money that the reserve gets every year is based on population. These people living off reserve get nothing. They are known as street people. The only time they come home is in boxes. We are living in a third world country here, our own land.
I have nothing against leadership here. Excuse me, I got nothing against the parties that are trying to make something good. It is the leadership that are in question. I want to make myself clear on that. That is all I have to say.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: You mentioned something about the mail-in ballots. Do you think there should be something in electoral sections there that should be handled differently, or you just do not want them at all?
Ms. Sutherland: I think it is only fair we let our off reserve vote, if that is what they choose. I mean, that is their right. But in a federal election, they would never allow a person to come carrying in 10 votes. They have to take a look at the fairness and how easy the system is to cheat the way it is set up now.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Yes. And Ms. Stevenson had mentioned, when all this was going on, was INAC ever confronted? Did you say there were letters written?
Ms. Stevenson: There was a petition signed by, I believe, 300 members. We requested that the ballots be counted the night the polls closed. As far as I know, that was forwarded to a council member. I am not sure if it went any further than that. That was just my understanding.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: And INAC would not do anything, with all the complaints that everybody has been having in this community?
Ms. Stevenson: As far as I know, INAC has not stepped in yet.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Is that something that should be law within the INAC system, like the Indian Act, the way they handle things?
Ms. Stevenson: Well, yes. I think they should be accountable for their responsibility to oversee these elections on reserve.
Ms. Sutherland: Their basic response when you go see the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs is, it is up to your present chief and council, which is frustrating when you know there is something wrong.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Yes, I understand. You mentioned the upcoming land claims. How do you think this money should be dispersed to the people? Should it be INAC again or you do not think the chief and council should be doing it? How do you think it should be handled?
Ms. Sutherland: The people should have had more consultation before the offer was accepted, before we even had any input into it.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: There was never a referendum?
Ms. Sutherland: No, not a proper one.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: I still did not get my answer. How do you think this should be handled?
Ms. Sutherland: I think it should be handled without any interference from the chief and council. They should have a special committee, a panel.
Mr. Keesick: Can I answer that also?
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Sure.
Mr. Keesick: We had a settlement in Grassy Narrows back in 1984. Settlement money is owed to the community of the people. I believe the only thing that the chief and council have there is to listen to the people in the community as to how that money should be dispersed within the community. This is not happening.
I came to Winnipeg in 1982 when the first settlement was given to Grassy Narrows through the pollution deal — about $4.5 million. The chief and council never had any participation in how that money was supposed to be delivered to the community. The governments of Canada and Ontario did that. They gave $1.5 million to a corporation and $2.9 million went to economics.
After a 10-year period, that money would have belonged to Grassy Narrows to do whatever they pleased with it, but it never worked out that way because it was designed to fail, and it did.
What happened in 1990 when the money was still there? A chief — I do not want to mention the name right now because I am a gentleman and he also is Anishinabe — took that money, his wife, his kids and his kids' boyfriends to Jerusalem to get baptized.
I was called back to the reserve from here to see what I could do and I did that. The chief was arrested and caught with the money, and he spent six months. If I had done that when I was chief, I probably would have been still in jail today. When we occupied in Anishinabe Park, we were told to get out of the country because the governments were after us. We were told by our lawyer at that time, Norm Zlotnick, boys, you better go because if you get arrested, you are going to get convicted with a 99-year sentence. I think I served that already because I am 66 right now. If you turn that 66 around, that is 99, so I am a free man.
The Chair: I am just going to the panel that is there. Are you aware of the election appeals, the Indian Band election regulations, that within 45 days of an election, the candidate or elector who believes there was a corrupt practice in connection with the election, there was a violation of the Act or these regulations that might have affected the result of the election, or a person nominated to be a candidate in the election was ineligible to be a candidate, may lodge an appeal by registered mail to the assistant deputy minister, particulars thereof, duly verified by affidavit?
I just read that into the record, because that is available for First Nations that come under the Indian Act under section 74.
Senator Dyck: I was going to ask if they had launched an official appeal. You have just read into the record what that mechanism should be. I would be curious to know if you knew that and you had actually launched an appeal?
Ms. Sutherland: I am aware of it.
Senator Dyck: Still you received no response from Indian and Northern Affairs Canada?
Ms. Sutherland: We are waiting.
Senator Dyck: You are still waiting. About how long have you been waiting?
Ms. Sutherland: May 3 was the deadline, our election was in March, so any day we will probably be getting word.
Mr. Chicago: In respect to your comment about the deadlines and so forth to the process and filing appeals within the Indian Act, I am aware of a lot of First Nations that have used that process. The time frame in that is basically time consuming. By the time there is any kind of response, usually another election has already been called. In fact, there was a ruling several years ago in a court matter where it took so long in court, the judge made a rule and stated, well, such-and-such a person that filed that complaint and went to court over the issue, the judge told them, you know, next week is your election, you have wasted two years of the court's time. And you want me to rule on something of that nature? The judge basically did not rule anything. So that individual was in court for two years.
The Chair: I am not saying the system is right.
Mr. Chicago: So that little clause you indicated to us does not work for a large per cent. The reason why is we do not have the dollars to afford lawyers to go into this process.
The Chair: That is good.
Mr. Keesick: There has to be a better mechanism.
Senator Hubley: A fairly quick question on consultation. What, in your mind, is the best way to get information from your chief and council? What do you consider appropriate consultation on any issue? As you know, we are here looking at fixed dates for elections, and maybe going from a two- to a four-year term under the Indian Act. I am just wondering if you would quickly respond to that?
Ms. Sutherland: The proper way would be to write a letter requesting certain information. If everything is on the up and up, it should be forthcoming.
I requested a piece of information before our last election. Not long after the election, I was fired. I think it was directly related. We obviously have to find some other way to get the information we need.
Senator Hubley: On that, certainly a theme we have heard is consultation, in other words, going back to the grassroots and getting their opinions and their ideas. This is what we are, what I would like to hear from you today, how you feel is the best way to do that and the most appropriate way to get that information through to your chief and council?
Ms. Sutherland: I think it has to come from somebody higher than them, that this information has to be made available to all the people. That is the only way the truth is going to get out. If you allow them to feed you what they think they should know, that is all we know. If they get up at band meetings and paint a completely different picture, that is what they believe. But it is not the truth half the time.
One of the other things you have to understand, too, is that the grassroots people do not have any type of a tool to use to enforce some of the requested, such as information — there is no stronger hand than chief and council.
The Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, especially those under band custom, do not have the authority to intervene in any way. In fact, I have documentation that goes back to about six ministers; they all kept washing their hands in respect to band custom elections. So there is no format in place for that.
The Chair: For clarification, I believe that the two-year case you referred to was under custom code, was it not?
Mr. Chicago: From the case, yes.
The Chair: So that makes it different than the Election Act.
Mr. Chicago: That is exactly what I am getting at here. The Indian Act is basically one big huge book. In the Indian Act, section 2 also covers band custom, the department does not get involved.
The Chair: That is right.
Mr. Chicago: The number of the speakers I had been listening to and that we deal with are Anishinabe people, too. They all carry status cards and numbers. Those are the people that are having difficulties.
Under the Indian Act system, there is a process where you can actually file complaints and the department has to react within a search time period. Those First Nations under band custom have no recourse of action to take. That is where a large percentage of our problems occur from — in the First Nations band custom.
Mr. Keesick: There is a lot of corruption going on with elections.
Ms. Sutherland: In regards to corruption on the reserve, how difficult it is to get out your information. There is a paper on our reserve. I am not going to say what it is called. But, anyway, it is paid for by the chief. Therefore, the information that gets out is all favouritism to what he wants people to know. It is mass mailed out to every band member. That is how a lot of misinformation goes off our reserve. People believe what they are reading and everything is perfect out in Peguis, when in reality it is not.
Senator Sibbeston: When I hear both you ladies, I can understand the frustration. It must be difficult to live in a place where you do not feel that things are done properly and so forth. My question would be, how prevalent, is it fairly common, are you an exception in the community, or are there a lot of people like you who feel that the election system is just not fair?
Ms. Sutherland: A lot of people feel like we feel in the community. There are also a lot of people who are afraid to speak out about what they feel for fear of retaliation. They all have families they have to take care of, which keeps them from voicing their concerns. But there is a large percentage of people on the reserve who think there are major flaws in the whole election process, that things have to be changed.
Senator Sibbeston: You have expressed a lot of concern. You feel there is fraud and so forth.
Ms. Stevenson, you really worry about the future in terms of how your children are going to be affected. Do you have any hope? What is the hope? What is the hope for the future, from your vantage point of view? If this is your view, and if there are other people who feel that way then on reserve, there must be a lot of people that do not feel good, that do not have hope for the future and so forth. If a lot of people feel this way, there must be a real malaise or just bad feeling of no hope.
Ms. Sutherland: There is, exactly.
Senator Sibbeston: Can there be any hope in this situation at all?
Ms. Sutherland: I think the hope has to come from the people. Every chance I get, I talk, I tell them do not give up, stand up for what you believe in.
Senator Sibbeston: Do you feel that, as women, you are particularly vulnerable, that it is action against women in a sense, that it is men in control and this sort of thing?
Ms. Sutherland: A bit, but I also feel as a woman that I am strong, I am capable, and I am thinking of my grandkids' future, the future of our community.
Ms. Stevenson: I feel for my friend, Phyllis. I really feel that our peoples' vote has not even been respected in regard to her position, because it was the people who put her there. Her job should never be taken away from her for what she feels is right.
I just want to see things run fairly and for our people to make a clear and informed decision in regard to our land claim. I do believe it even states that somewhere in the Indian Act, that the people have to make a clear and an informed decision.
There are even people off the reserve who are requesting more information meetings in regard to our illegal surrender — but it has been rushed again. We were told it was going to be July, but already it is going to be June 13. And everybody is questioning why the hurry? If things are being done in a good and fair and just way, it should not be rushed. Meegwitch.
The Chair: I would like to thank you all for appearing.
Before we go to our last presenter, I would like to call two more witnesses to the table: Lou Ella Shannacappo and Jean Courchene.
Ladies, you have five minutes each.
Lou Ella Shannacappo, as an individual: I am from the Rolling River First Nation. I would also like to welcome you from the biggest and largest First Nation in Manitoba, which is the City of Winnipeg.
The population in Winnipeg of First Nation people is absolutely phenomenal. The majority of the individuals who relocate to Winnipeg are individuals with disabilities. And this is why I am here.
I work for the First Nations Disability Association of Manitoba. Currently, there are only people employed which work for First Nation people with disabilities as a whole in Manitoba. Not only do we work for the individuals in Manitoba, we also work with individuals who come in to the province, who relocate from Ontario or other provinces.
When you look at Winnipeg itself and the accessibility factor, this is why our City of Winnipeg has an overload of First Nation people who have medical problems and have no choice but to relocate. This has become a problem.
Suffice it to say, I am one of those individuals. I am now 50 years old. I have been residing in Winnipeg for a majority of years. I have been in a wheelchair since I was 26 years old, and I am also a grandmother.
When you look at the election processes, I look at the accessibility factor. As most of you have noticed when I first came here yesterday morning, I had a hard time entering the building because of the machine that was not available. On many occasions, persons with disabilities have had to enter buildings through the back.
That is quite degrading in this day and age to have to come through an entrance, through the back doors, of which I entered through the back yesterday because they did not have the accessibility factor available to me in the hotel of this size.
When you look at the election process, you look at the viability of when it comes to privacy and confidentiality. When you look at our federal elections, they look at our privacy, they look at the confidentiality of who we, as people with disabilities, vote for. That is not in place when it comes to First Nation elections.
My heart goes out to the individuals who sat up here and said that they do not agree with individuals to vote off reserve. I, for one, disagree with that because I feel it is important that I have my say when it comes to who is chief on my reserve.
I come from a long line of politicians in my family — my father; my brother who spoke yesterday who was chief of our reserve and is now the grand chief; and also my other brother, Dennis Whitebird, who was former chief, grand chief, AMC grand chief, and is also now treaty commissioner.
When I look back at the politics in my life and at all the things I have gone through, of listening to what has happened not only at my First Nation community, but also being off reserve, I feel that we have to have a voice for the persons who do not have voices. These are the people who live here in Winnipeg that have disabilities.
When you look around at the voices that are here to speak on behalf of the people that live off reserve, I think about how it was not advertised or set out for our people here in Winnipeg, urban First Nation people, to be available to come and voice their concerns.
In our database, I have approximately over a thousand individuals. I probably could have notified a few of them that they could have come and voiced their concerns here but, unfortunately, I just read this in the paper last Friday. When you look at the City of Winnipeg, and the majority of our individuals who live off reserve live on social assistance, the majority of them cannot afford The Winnipeg Free Press, to be able to read about this whole situation that is going on right now. And yet, I feel that it is a very important process, and that people with disabilities have a right to voice their concerns, and have a right to be able to sit here at the table, to come in here in front of the Senate and say to you just exactly what they feel when it comes to off-reserve voting.
Our people are just as important, especially when it comes to people with disabilities, because we are the voices that are not heard. We are always the people that are put on the bottom of the totem pole, and always have been throughout the years. We have been trying to get our leadership to look and to be part and parcel to what our plight is, as far as people with disabilities in Manitoba are concerned.
With that, I would like to bring my concerns to this table on behalf of First Nation people with disabilities.
Jean Courchene, as an individual: Good afternoon. I am from Fairford First Nation. I heard about this forum yesterday morning and I wanted to come. I only had three dollars in my pocket when I came. I used my Visa card to get to Winnipeg, to buy gas. That is an example of what it is like for grassroots people to get around. They have no access to attend forums of any type, anywhere, and they have no voice.
We are not told of what is happening when there are meetings, chiefs' meetings, any type of a meeting, we are not told.
This election reform you are talking about is badly needed. At our last election in Fairford, there was a line-up right up to the chief's bedroom where people were being paid for their vote. The mail-in ballots, there were 200 of them completely identical, signed by the same witness. Now, do not tell me that is coincidence.
If we are having election reform at the band level, we need it at the provincial level too, and at the national level. As it stands now, we do not vote for the grand chief or any of the regional grand chiefs in Manitoba, and we do not vote for the national chief. Yet we are very, very much over-governed.
We have maybe about 10 governments that we are under. At the band level, tribal level, regional level, provincial level, the national level, we have co-managers, we have receiverships, we have the province, we have the Government of Canada, and we have hundreds and hundreds of committees at every level of the chiefs' organizations. They are committees chaired by chiefs and members of chiefs, and we do not hear of what goes on. The only time we hear is if we happen to come across Grassroots News or some of the native magazines.
We need to have changes. We cannot carry on like this. Every so often, government sets about to hear what Aboriginal people are saying.
In 1982, I heard the native leaders plead and beg the Government of Canada for self-government and nothing happened. In Manitoba, they spent about $59 million on a memorandum of understanding on the framework agreement for self-government. Midway, the project was halted after all that money had been spent.
Then we had the Government of Canada and the Aboriginal peoples sectoral sessions on housing, economic development, health and education right across Canada. I attended some of those sessions and told the Aboriginal people at the Calgary meeting — the government is just wanting to know where we are at and what we are thinking. That is how it appears to me, that is how it looks, and nothing happens out of all this money being spent.
We had the super big royal commission. What came out of that after all those millions were spent? We still live in poverty. My husband does not even have a road to go to his house. He has to sleep at his niece's house after a rain or a big snowstorm.
Nobody wants to talk about poverty. We cannot talk about poverty; we will look bad. I see poverty and it hurts me. I cry because of poverty. It breaks my heart. Yet I see the wealth of this country, the country that once belonged to our people, the Indian people. How long are we going to sit back and take this abuse we are getting from our government and from our people? Where is the bill of sale for our country? We do not get anything from our resources. When are we going to get the resources that belong to us?
We cannot even pay for my electricity half of the time. I fetch my own water at this day and age. We have millions of dollars that are being given to Pakistan and Afghanistan and we have people in our own country starving. Meegwitch.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Dyck: I have a quick question for Ms. Shannacappo. You said that you had not really heard about this until you saw it in the paper. Would you make a recommendation as to how we could get news of such an event out better to people that are actually in the community?
Ms. Shannacappo: There are a lot of individuals and native newspapers here in the city. We also have our native radio station here that is available. Also, I am surprised that the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs did not allow people — usually when there is something going on for the AMC, they put notification out and there was nothing. There is a great big bulletin board right at the AMC building where individuals go. All the other tribal offices and native offices here at the city could have put up notifications on bulletin boards where people enter, but there was nothing. I am surprised by that.
The Chair: The information that I have is that it was in the First Nations Drum or is it the Grassroots News?
Ms. Courchene: The Grassroots.
The Chair: It was in there. But maybe we did not give it enough time and we apologize for that. We learn from our errors, and hopefully we will make it right the next time.
Ms. Courchene: Excuse me, but could I ask a question? I heard you say a pilot project a number of times. When we started with the residential school negotiations, we came up with one petition. Then all of a sudden, they threw pilot projects at us and gave us 12 pilot projects for Canada, across Canada. We felt like we were being divided right there, and conquered right there.
The Chair: I do not see this is divide and conquer, the pilot —
Ms. Courchene: But it weakens us every time we are divided.
The Chair: The thing is that we are trying to deal with an amalgamation with Treaty One in regards to this. I take your submission, and I am sure the other committee members will take your submission seriously in our consideration before we enter into anything.
Our next witness, senators, is Chief Glenn Hudson from the Peguis First Nation. He was with us yesterday as part of the Treaty One group. He is here to make remarks in regards to his First Nation.
Chief, the floor is yours.
Glenn Hudson, Chief, Peguis First Nation: I want to thank you again for the opportunity to present. I know there was a group just ahead of me that presented before me, but that is the type of style of leadership that I undertake at Peguis. People are free to speak at their will, whether it is band meetings, which we started implementing this past term. That was the first time we had a band meeting in our community in over 12 years, specifically focusing on general items of discussion. I just wanted to make you aware of that.
I prepared some speaking notes with respect to, obviously, elections, and some of the problems that I faced. The presentation given previously mirrored my position at the time when I was running for this office.
Our population is about 8,700 people, of which 4,500 live on reserve. I grew up in Peguis, and ended up running consecutively for four terms before I became elected. I just want to note that I do have a degree in engineering and, obviously, wanted to return home to assist and benefit the community. Chief was one position where I saw there were a lot of issues. We have a lot of issues in our First Nation communities but it was always a goal of mine, ever since I was a young kid, to lead our community. I think I prepared myself for that.
Upon returning home, I became concerned with the conditions of the community and the plight of our people, our youth, and decided to do something to improve matters. Obviously, elections were one of the main issues.
At Peguis, it was a time of suffering, ails of the First Nation community, as in any other community, high unemployment, economic development was depressed, high dropout rates among our youth, and a big deficit which was climbing in our community. To let you know, I inherited a deficit of $26 million coming in, in our community.
To say things are perfect, no, they are not; they are far from perfect in our community.
On my fourth attempt, I was elected with a slight majority of around 66 votes. In my third term, I lost. On my third try, I lost by 29 votes at the time and ended up deciding to appeal, to go through the appeal process as set out under the Indian Act.
There were many criticisms concerning the fixed two-year term. Under the Indian Act, it was difficult. One of the main things, as I expressed previously, is having these two-year terms. It drives a stake and obviously divides our community very much when it comes time for these competitions and elections.
To let you know, from the many people who have looked at it and the feedback I have gotten, being a chief or councillor is an employment position. Certainly, to me, it is a position that is held in high regard. Obviously, you want to try and come back and benefit your community. That was my plan, my outlook in this political arena.
Obviously, the two-year term is inadequate as far as long-term initiatives and reforms that are necessary to build a proper foundation for community development. The result is often a rush to achieve progress within the term of office.
My first six months, eight months, I spent just getting acquainted with the position and our situation and, obviously, dealing with government. But the two-year window, at Peguis, we have never had a frequent turnover as far as council goes. Once you were elected, either as chief or as council, and once you had been replaced in that position, the history in our community is you never return to office if you have held the position before. I think the people at Peguis make up their minds in terms of their decisions on who they go with as far as elected leaders. Not once has a council member or a chief that ran for re-election got elected.
Obviously, it is mentioned about politicians, as far as dealing with less honest ways to hold on to power. To me, in our community, I wanted to disperse that power and have the people decide in terms of who represents them, not only at the council level, but as mentioned previously we are going through a land claims process where the officials, the trustees, are elected. The same thing with the school board.
Under my first term in office, at the request of the community, we implemented school board elections. Right now, I know this is one item that is in the process of being appealed. We have our own process that we have set up internally to carry out the procedures and the processes involved, but set up our own electoral officer, and the process there as far as the deputy electoral officer, they are the people from Peguis who have experience running those elections and also the appeal mechanism. Developing those procedures, we also had a person who is held in high status within the Manitoba community. Even across the country, Judge Murray Sinclair has been involved with developing our processes there, but he is also involved with our membership, our membership committee.
Having people like this on board builds a lot of integrity and a lot of structure in terms of those processes.
The school board is no different, the way I look at it. The way we have approached things is to do exactly that, to ensure the integrity of the process — but there needs to be a redress mechanism. We have done that, where a former RCMP officer with 25 years within the RCMP sits on the appeal committee. We also have a person with a law degree who sits on the appeal committee and also an elder within the community. Those people have made the decisions in terms of the outcomes of any appeals involving our school board elections.
Currently, we are in the process of developing our own governance structure which has never been undertaken before in our community. That is a similar process we are going through to accommodate band elections because of the inadequacies of the Indian Act elections.
As far as instability and uncertainty go, within our political system, that is where it arises. Concerning the Indian Act introduced in the Corbière case, I know it mentioned allowing people off reserve to participate in the elections.
To me, you are a status Indian wherever you go. People ask me, wherever I am, where are you from? The first thing I say is I am from Peguis First Nation. It is not from Manitoba, it is not from Canada, it is not from the municipality or the town where I reside, that is close to us I should say, it is from Peguis First Nation. So we have a lot of pride in terms of identifying our home.
But under Corbière also, that was implemented without a duty to consult and obviously the duty to accommodate. But when it comes down to allowing people to participate in our electoral processes, it should be open to people as part of our nation.
To me, at Peguis, we have gone through a situation as a result of our land claim process. We have been divided for the past 100 years because of the illegal surrender of our former reserve. Now is the opportunity to bring our nation back together, regardless of where you live, whether it is on Peguis or whether it is in the City of Winnipeg or Selkirk, or for that matter, New Zealand. We have one member that is there and who is in constant contact with our First Nation.
When it comes down to this process, the way I look at it, as a leader and obviously as a person, we are part of one nation, and that being Peguis First Nation.
Traditionally, when you go back even beyond the dates of treaty, we did not reside in just one area; there were many, many areas as far as the resources available for living at the time, and we were able to freely migrate throughout the province or the country. I think that is a bit of a reflection in allowing our people, both on and off reserve, to participate in this electoral process. It reflects that.
It was done in such a way that we were not consulted and, obviously, we are not accommodated. Right now, when it comes to our funding, for example, a lot of our funding comes from our on-reserve population where we have more than half living away from our community.
With regard to the shortcomings of extending that process, this funding should have come with it because there are a lot of people in need out there and that have maintained and resided around our former reserve, which was taken illegally. They still feel that we need to be accountable to them. Their needs need to be addressed. Given the funding situation, it makes it very difficult.
In terms of setting a fixed term and common-day elections that will promote efficiencies in standard elections, we certainly are looking at extending to a three- or four-year mandate. It will be decided upon by the community because, ultimately, that is who makes the decision in terms of implementing any type of measures involving a common process set out for the community.
As far as the capacity in dealing with election administration and appeal mechanisms, it was mentioned previously that the electoral officer was related to me. That is not fact and, obviously, that appeal will be dealt with. The person who does run our elections within Manitoba is probably held in the highest regard and is a senior, was a senior officer in the RCMP. He conducts himself accordingly. We felt that bringing in accountability and transparency, and making sure that things are done appropriately, this was the person for us. He has a background working in First Nation communities, but also is married to a First Nation person. So he understands the conditions that we are faced with involving not only elections, but just general conditions in our communities associated with our people.
As far as dealing with our individual process, as I mentioned, I did run for four consecutive terms. On the fourth term, I was elected. Given the third term, we were faced with a situation where there were things, benefits being handed out, money, furniture, et cetera. We had gone through a judicial review on this process. It took on the order of eight months to get a response back from the government involving this appeal. That is the reason we were not satisfied with the outcome, the findings from the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs and the people in charge in Ottawa. We ended up pursuing a judicial review. After a long, arduous and drawn-out process, it was two months before the next election that our judicial review was heard. This is 22 months out of a 24-month term. Judge McTavish, who presided over our judicial review, had determined there were in fact problems with our electoral process and findings with regard to corruption.
I will just read to you the direct statement from the judge at the time. The statement indicates that the decision that the evidence did not support a finding of corruption was unreasonable as it was based on erroneous findings of fact and made without regard to the evidence presented. That was it.
Senator Sibbeston: It is difficult to understand because there are so many negatives just the way it reads. Can you read it again?
Mr. Hudson: The decision that the evidence, as far as the judicial review went, did not support a finding of corruption was unreasonable. Meaning that there was. It was based on erroneous findings, which the INAC system had determined, of fact and was made without regard to the evidence presented. We went through the process of going through the appeal. An appeal officer assigned by INAC did his investigation and then a decision was made by the people who preside over appeals in Ottawa. That was the outcome of this judicial review from the judge's point of view.
Given that we received this decision in the 22nd month of a 24-month term, I was challenged by INAC officials to prove it. It took me three elections. It took me many dollars out of my own pocket and support from community members to prove this. And we did in the end. But what was done? Nothing. A new election was called. Obviously, the people who had participated in this outcome, in this finding, in this improper practice, were allowed to run. Why is that when a judge indicates there were problems?
Certainly, with the presentations given earlier, to me, I do not support that at all. I do not practice that. I know we have made many significant changes in our governance and our electoral process. Given that Corbière was imposed upon us without the duty to consult and accommodate, there were some pluses and minuses associated with it. To me, it allowed people to participate that did not have the ability to participate. They are part of our nation. I look at it from a positive point of view. It is nation building, allowing our people to have a say. On the negative side, we do not get the funding that come along with our people and making decisions as far as outcomes in our electoral processes and within the band business.
As stated, when I also went through this process, who do I go to when Indian and Northern Affairs Canada is not providing me with the adequate facts, the adequate decisions? Do I go to other chiefs, which I have done, but they did not want to be involved with another First Nations' affairs — running into barriers there. That is one of the main reasons why I do support a hands-off approach in terms of me being involved in these processes. I know the comment was made about band custom. And the way people look at it, it is customized. Who is it customized by? The current people in power, so they are going to swing it in their favour. To me, that is not the purpose and intent.
The reason that I support the Treaty One initiative is because there is an allowance that a council of elders may establish our appeal committee, or men or women or whoever it may be, youth, or even a council of chiefs, as far as having them make decisions surrounding an appeal mechanism. I certainly support that. Obviously, when I do get people involved, like a judge, like former RCMP officers that have over 25 years of experience and no problems with their history in working with the RCMP, they are credible people. Especially people with a legal background also. It is very difficult.
I know I am painted as a dictator but changes are hard to accept, especially when you are making positive changes in the community. When it comes down to a business approach, as far as our governance is concerned, yes, we are embarking on changes on governance, membership changes. Again, Judge Murray Sinclair presides over membership decisions. I do not have any problems with that.
We have a new human resources department. Our land claim trusts are decided upon by the people. One of the main things is an information officer to control the information in and out of our process. I certainly do not want to be a part of that, but there needs to be a policy and process in place to control those things. There are many other things.
I know it is not perfect. Obviously, people have their opinions, but they are entitled to their opinions. I certainly do not oppose that. I have always had an opinion as a young guy growing up. I used to ask a lot of questions and my parents encouraged that. So I do the same as a leader, people are entitled to their opinions and they will not lose their employment as far as stating their opinions. It is all based on credence and credibility, and establishing a process that has integrity and that can be sustained and accepted by the community. That is what I endorse.
The Chair: Is that your submission, sir?
Mr. Hudson: I know there are a lot of problems with this process, and I do want to see it changed. I know that it has been imposed upon us. Even the Indian Act itself is archaic. And elections, to me, when you take it back, when that system was introduced, it was obviously meant to control us as Indian people. That two-year mandate was meant to bring some dysfunction, I believe, within the community.
Having a four-year mandate, three- or four-year mandate, whatever it may be, we will let people decide as far as developing that electoral process, especially within our community. As First Nations' involvement in any changes under this Indian Act, we need to be involved. There is a duty on the part of the federal government to consult and accommodate. I just wanted to state those closing arguments.
Senator Sibbeston: The question of valid votes for people that are not on the reserve, you say you have 8,700, and 4,500 people live on the reserve. In your case, if all the people that do not live on the reserve vote, that can have a tremendous influence on the outcome of an election. So obviously, that is very important.
With regard to the ladies who were here before, you indicated that they thought there were problems with that. Is there a way to ensure that dealing with off-reserve ballots can be done so that it is not just seen to be fair — what would you recommend in terms of either changing it or working that system so that everybody thinks it is fair? I can understand, if I was living on the reserve, because you know the situation, you know day to day what is going on, so you feel you have a much greater knowledge of the issues. But someone living in New Zealand or Vancouver and so forth, is very far removed. They may not know the candidates, they may not know the issues, but are given a chance, the same chance as somebody living there on the reserve to voice their opinion.
Can you not see where that could be an issue? How do you propose to make it so that everybody thinks it is fair?
Mr. Hudson: One of the problems is contacting people afar like that. As I mentioned, there are people living in New Zealand and Gallup, New Mexico, as far as our members go. I know they are interested in our politics. In reaching out to them, that is why we have websites.
This past election, I went through a process where there was defamatory information being spread, and rumours and gossip on a website set out to go against me — but you do have to find ways to reach out to these people.
Having the membership list and list of addresses, I know I was in the same boat when I was running for this position. I felt that we were not being treated fairly. With respect to openly publishing that, we had to do our due diligence in reaching out to these people, whether checking phone lists, the white pages, whatever you may have.
As far as their participation, it is all part of nation building to me in terms of allowing them to participate. At the same time, in terms of trying to correct that, people walking in with multiple ballots, obviously there are families that may have five, ten people, and if somebody is driving out, well, here you go, take-my-ballot-with-you-kind-of-thing. I think you have to eliminate that and have those things postmarked and making sure they are mailed.
I know with us, there were problems that mirror the arguments here. We had a problem with the electoral officer that was appointed by Indian Affairs. In the end, he ended up getting ousted. So people mailed them in at free will. But to bring in a stack of ballots, I do not think is appropriate at all. That was one of my arguments also.
I know the electoral officer we have in place now, if he indicated that there were 10 people coming in with 10 ballots, he would question that. It is different if you have one or two or three extra family members who may vote.
I think the solution is to make sure they are mailed in and not just handed in.
Senator Sibbeston: Another question I have has to do with cost of appeal. Obviously, elections are contested and for various reasons. It seems like it is very much a part of the Indian election system. There is a lawyer that I know in northern Alberta who said that, over the last two years, one band spent over a million dollars just paying lawyers because of the appeal. Over the last five years, $20 million has been spent by various First Nations in northern Alberta to deal with appeals. A process that goes to the federal court is very costly. He says, too, it is very cumbersome. These federal judges do not know anything about Indian politics and the way things are on reserve and so forth. So they are forced, in a sense, to make decisions on a legalistic matter, which may not provide real justice to people.
In the future, recognizing that there are going to be appeals, what is the solution? I know in Ottawa, we asked the question of officials there. They say, yes, we have a small little group in headquarters here that deals with appeals and so forth. It seems that we do not have a good, efficient, knowledgeable and fair system to deal with appeals so what can we do? What would you recommend be done to solve this problem?
Mr. Hudson: That is a difficult one to answer. Again, with a legal system that has been imposed upon us, I know that is not our system for First Nations' people traditionally. What we should be doing and what we need to do is develop our own appeal mechanism, whether it is an individual First Nation or at a higher level, which was asked for, whether it is based on the treaty area or on the entire province. But it does have to come from our First Nations and not a legal system per se that is very costly.
I know in dealing with our last appeal in 2007, it was over $30,000 in legal fees just for that one appeal. So it is very costly. At the same time, the best answer that I can give you is it must come from within our individual or collective First Nations — set up an appeal process where people do not have impact or influence on the decisions there. Also, the most damaging thing is the money that flows into the community. Money makes people do crazy things. It has to be away from that system of influence.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Chief and council, is that a paid position?
Mr. Hudson: Yes, it is.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Where do the funds come from?
Mr. Hudson: They come from band programming, from Indian and Northern Affairs Canada.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Do they set aside a certain amount of money for the chief and council?
Mr. Hudson: The process we are currently involved with is Canada First Nations funding agreements. It is block funding that we receive over a five-year period. We are able, under that funding agreement, to identify the money eligible for each individual program, and obviously compensation that was given.
To add to that, I know in the past in our community, there were questions as far as salaries go and how much people made. Over this past year, in terms of our governance structure that we are creating, we set certain limits for the chief, the amount that they are able, as far as their remuneration. Same thing for council. We cannot exceed that. Right now, we are reminded on a monthly basis, the pluses or minuses around our budgeted allocations.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: It does not take away from the people in the community?
Mr. Hudson: It needs to be dispersed accordingly. You try and budget as much as you can in terms of the allocation of money that you are given. Just to make you aware, our population is growing at a significantly higher rate than the funding increases we receive under this funding agreement. Where is the equity in that? There is none.
Senator Peterson: Following that further, you said that the funding is determined by the on-reserve population — is that correct?
Mr. Hudson: The funding that we receive, yes, mainly, except for health and education, it is determined as a —
Senator Peterson: On the total?
Mr. Hudson: Yes, but in terms of housing, our infrastructure, the different programs within the community, it is identified by on-reserve population — yes.
Senator Peterson: But you are obligated to look after the off-reserve people as well, right?
Mr. Hudson: It all depends on your style of leadership, right? If you want to just focus on and follow up with the money that you are allocated within that reserve boundary, then you are entitled to do so. If you are looking at a broader mandate, which I just explained, I would rather see our nation come back together, both people on and off reserve, because we have been split over the last 100 years, it includes people off reserve. But there is no funding that comes for them for housing, for infrastructure development, et cetera.
Senator Peterson: Do you think now with the new ruling, where they have the right to vote, that they should possibly revisit that in terms of the funding?
Mr. Hudson: Well, certainly. That is some of the things we have been requesting as First Nation leaders, that they adjust that, and reflect not only our growing population but people away from the community also.
Senator Peterson: Are the numbers determined on the census every five years? You said the growing population, when would that catch up?
Mr. Hudson: On the census, yes.
Senator Hubley: My question was much the same as Senator Peterson's. What services would you provide for your off-reserve members that impact on your financial budget?
Mr. Hudson: It is various things. Right now, dental is continually being cut back. People who need certain kinds of dental procedures have to pay for them. If you are on social assistance, or you may not be provided with social assistance at all, where are they going to get the money to do that? Same thing with prescriptions, same thing with education. We are only given a certain amount of money and we try and accommodate as many people as possible.
Senator Hubley: Both on reserve and off reserve?
Mr. Hudson: Yes.
The Chair: Thank you, Chief Hudson, for your presentation and your answers to the questions placed by the senators.
We will now move to the second open mike session of the afternoon. I would ask Roderick Ross, Elmer Courchene, Renata Mecorise and Chief Marcel Balfour to please come forward.
We will begin with Mr. Ross.
Roderick D. Ross, as an individual: Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, as well as your distinguished colleagues.
My name is Roderick D. Ross. The "D" stands for Darren because my father is also named Roderick Ross, but I am not junior. Treaty Five, Berens River First Nation, direct descendant of Jacob Berens. I thank you for being here with us this afternoon.
I have a suggestion before I pose my questions, if I may. In respect to the elders and the chiefs and the ladies and gentlemen that are here, if you may introduce your colleagues, and also the two gentlemen behind you, please?
The Chair: This is Senator Sibbeston, our deputy chair, from the Northwest Territories. We then have Senator Peterson from Saskatchewan.
The two gentlemen behind me — one is the fellow I work for, he is my chief. I have been working for him for quite a while. He is out right now, the blonde guy. The other is —
Senator Sibbeston: He works for me as a researcher.
The Chair: Hayden Trenholme is the other one. There is Senator Lovelace Nicholas from New Brunswick, Senator Dyck from Saskatchewan, and Senator Hubley from Prince Edward Island.
Mr. Ross: Thank you.
With respect to this process or this study on federal government constitutional treaty political and legal responsibilities to First Nations, Inuit and Metis peoples, and on other matters generally relating to the Aboriginal peoples of Canada — the topic being issues pertaining to Indian Act elections — my first question, and you might want to write some of these down if you may, is where are we in this process? Who and what initiated this study?
The Chair: Go ahead.
Mr. Ross: In relation to urban elections, urban dollars, specifically in regard to the Corbière decision, we are all aware of the Corbière decision where anybody was eligible to vote on/off reserve. The follow-up to that is going to be anyone who decides to run, or run for council, can run living in an urban setting. Prior to that, it was you needed to reside on reserve for six months.
My other question is, in the past 10, 12 years or so, we have imposed on some of our peoples election codes. They spent countless thousands of dollars on revamping their election codes. Let us say, for example, a chief is into their first year, year-and-a-half or year-and-three-quarters term, when this proposed amendment or one election system goes through, if it does go through, what happens to that chief? How does that process work? If they are a year-and-a-half, a year-and-three-quarters into it, do they serve the remainder of their quarter or half a term, or how does that work?
In closing comments, I think that we need to have an adequate time frame and awareness. I made a comment to Chair St. Germain, with all respect, that this room should be at least six times the size of this. I know you tried to make our people aware. We heard one of the elders mention there was an assembly last week at Sagkeeng and not a word of this. Meegwitch.
This is just the beginning. This is a great undertaking. I want to encourage you not to rush. You are giving us until 5:00 p.m. to discuss something, the possibilities of it affecting our children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren and so on. As we all realize here, we sit at this table, politics affect every aspect of our life, whether we are directly or indirectly involved. Meegwitch.
The Chair: Thank you. We will get the response of these to you. We have your response and your contacts, I believe, and we will respond to those.
Mr. Ross: I think I still have about two-and-a-half minutes left.
The Chair: No, you have one minute left. But having said that, we will get back to you. As far as getting larger participation, there is no question that we did what we thought was this — nothing is perfect.
Mr. Ross: No, but the size of this room determines what you anticipated to be here. Meegwitch.
The Chair: No, but you can move that wall out and we can have twice the room. Thank you.
Mr. Ross: Thank you. I would have preferred if you would have answered my questions here, but you are the boss.
The Chair: If I have time, I will answer them.
Mr. Ross: Okay. Thank you.
The Chair: I will.
Elmer Courchene, as an individual: Good afternoon. Five minutes is getting nowhere. I do not even have time to scratch my back.
When I heard about this the other day, I asked myself what is the purpose of all this? How come there is a monkey that is popping up from nowhere, which I never heard about?
I have been involved in the last six years, listening across the country. I have seen the pain, the poverty and the hurt of our people.
Just a while ago, I went down outside to have a smoke, and I saw one of my people out there come up to me. We talked in our language. When I looked at him, I felt the pain. I said to myself, what are we doing? Where are we going? Why do I have to see one of my own people roaming around a city, when the main issue is not being addressed to change that. Where is the resource equity discussion? That has never been discussed. Why? I would like to know. Because all these pains and suffering that we see should not be if the resource equity was dealt with many, many years ago, at a time of our ancestors when they signed the treaties.
We have a lot of studying to do and we have to face the truth and we have to be honest with one another.
If we are going to play the tumbleweed game, we will never resolve the issues that are in front of us. We will go around in circles and circles. Somebody getting paid millions of dollars while others are suffering in pain, because they do not want to deal or face the ultimate question, the resource equity question. It has been there since time immemorial.
That is where we have to begin. Yes, we have a lot of issues today that have to be looked at, but give it time, give it proper wheel to turn, and it will resolve itself one way or the other. We have to think of the little ones today. If we do not think of their future, if we do not think of the resource equity question, what do they have for the future? They will be sitting here like me, begging. For what?
I do not have to beg. I have every right to say whatever I want to say because this is my land. I am not afraid to admit it. My ancestors never sold this land. They only said, we allow you to live, for your existence, on six inches of the soil. They did not say go and dig. They did not say go cut timber. They did not say go near the waters. They did not say go pollute the air. Those are all questions that need to be answered if we want to get to a better understanding and a healthy country which you call Canada, and which I call Turtle Island. We have to come to that point. If we do not, we are the biggest liars of the world, and that is true.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Courchene: Thank you very much.
Renata Mecorise, as an individual: Good afternoon. I wanted to come here today to give my input. I went to work really early this morning. I came here so that I could give my input on something that I think is really important. Even though I have not lived on my First Nation for most of my life, it is an integral part of my life. I think for every First Nations person, even though they may not live on their First Nation, it is always a part of their home and they are connected to it, as well as to the land.
I wanted to talk about election reform here today because I think it is important. I also think what Elmer said is really important because you have to hear what elders say. He has a lot of wisdom that I think people need to hear, especially for a Senate committee like yourselves set up to hear from Aboriginal people, and to be bringing our issues to government. I think it is important to hear what people like Elmer said today so I hope you take that to government and push for the things that we are talking about here today.
As for election reform, I would like to just give some points, first of all. The Government of Canada has Elections Canada, which is an independent body, and the citizens of Canada can vote for all of the politicians who hope to be elected and run this country.
The province has Elections Manitoba, and there is an independent body to look after elections and make sure that there is a fair and just way of electing politicians and making sure it is accountable.
Then, when you look at First Nations' governments, who is doing the elections? It is Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. It is some staff within the elections department that look after our elections.
Canadians are citizens of Canada. Manitobans are citizens of Manitoba. First Nations are citizens of their First Nations, and they should be entitled to independent bodies that would look after their elections. They should be entitled to fair and just ways of electing their officials, to be able to go forward if they have an appeal, or even if they just want to learn more information.
As some of the leadership has been here over the last couple of days, they have mentioned that they have different forms of governance and they are looking at different ways of doing elections and even governing.
I think it is really important for you to hear from all of us today, that you have to look at citizenship too, and that First Nations' people are citizens of First Nations. They are entitled to fair elections and, as well, to be able to be informed.
I consider myself to be very informed when it comes to things. I monitor the media every single day. I did find this committee hearing in the Grassroots News so it is good that you put it in that media. But I would like to invite you to come back to Manitoba as a committee. I think it is important for you to hear from leadership, from grassroots people here across the country, and of course in Manitoba where the largest First Nations Aboriginal population is.
At least one in four people in Manitoba are of Aboriginal descent, and we are growing at a very large rate. I think it is important to get a handle on this now.
A number of the people are going to be of voting age. They are going to want to be involved in their elections.
Of all of the different elections in Canada, you have federal elections, provincial, municipal, and then you have First Nations. They are the most involved people when it comes to elections.
I voted in federal, provincial, municipal and First Nations' elections, and I cannot say that for other people. But when it comes to First Nations, we all vote. It is really important to us.
I would like to suggest that, when you go to government and make your recommendations, you listen to not only leadership, but also grassroots people like myself, and women and technicians and other people who are important in First Nations' life, to have an independent body. Perhaps one that can assist different First Nations who vary in their forms of government, whether it be their constitution or their custom band council or their Indian Act elections that will be reformed. Whatever it may be, I would like to suggest that there be some form of an independent body, instead of spending $20 million on appeals that can go towards employing First Nations' people to govern themselves.
The Chair: The reason we picked Manitoba to be the first place is because we recognize the importance of Aboriginal peoples in this region.
Ms. Mecorise: I hope you come back.
The Chair: Thank you.
Please proceed, Chief Balfour
Marcel Balfour, Chief, Norway House Cree Nation: Thank you, Mr. Chair and senators. I am going to go quick and I have tried to edit my comments.
My name is Marcel Balfour, I am the chief of Norway House Cree Nation. I note that, had I not been in Winnipeg for business, I would not have had the opportunity to speak to you today.
As a chief, I received no notice, and the AMC, the MKO, Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak, the AFN, Assembly of First Nations, did not inform me of your good work that is going on here.
I would reiterate an invitation actually to come to northern Manitoba, to not only Norway House, but other places so that my colleague chiefs and others in the North can also express some comments too.
I should like to state, however, that first and foremost, the irony of your exercise here does not escape me. The Senate, a politically appointed body, is seeking to discuss issues of political accountability, democratic reform, leadership selection and elections for First Nations. In this regard, I should like to make reference in my May 2 presentation to the Province of Manitoba special committee on Senate reform.
In that presentation, we noted that the Senate is a discriminatory institution. You need to own real property to be appointed. But from a First Nation perspective, that does not make any sense because property ownership is collective in nature.
I mention this today because of the collective versus individual components. I am hoping that you are hearing a lot of, and I only caught a little bit of your afternoon here, but that collective rights base is fundamental to First Nations. I want to make sure, if you are contemplating some suggestions to go forward, that that collective nature is included on some discussions and recommendations that you have.
Just by quick way of background, I have got some interesting experience talking about political accountability, democratic reform. In 2002, I was elected as a councillor locally, but then my chief, who was Ron Evans at the time, locked me out of my office, reduced my salary to less than $5,000 a year, tried to evict me from my home, ordered two armed guards to beat me up and steal my computer, because I was taking him to court.
Eventually, I won those court decisions in 2006. The federal court said that I was subject to influence peddling and blackmail.
I got elected as chief. Then I had three people who were promising over 90 families homes, and gave out furniture and appliances two days before the election.
Just recently they got out of office, because my local election appeal committee determined that that was corrupt practice. So we are doing our things ourselves. It takes some time that involves the federal court.
I do note, though, that the federal court does understand these issues. I think is much more amenable to listening to these concerns from the grassroots and people who cannot afford to go forward in court to be able to fight this.
At Norway House, of course, prior to 1952, we did things ourselves. In 1952, with the imposition of the Indian Act, we had to, under section 74, have elections that way. We just recently got out of that in 1999. We are currently involved in changing our EPA, Election Procedures Act, so that the appeal body is not just politically appointed by chief and council, and some other issues that we have identified that are problematic.
Our current EPA is basically a mirror image of the Indian Act, but for a four-year term and a local appeal body.
I also want to comment, however, in terms of democratic representation. I totally support Chief Hudson's comments with respect to people who live off the reserve. They can vote for me, but I cannot vote for them. I cannot represent them because I got no money for representation for them. In other words, I believe the implementation as it currently is for Corbière is undemocratic. It is anti-democratic, quite frankly. Oh, I can vote for Chief Balfour but he cannot do anything for me. And I cannot. I cannot do things for people off the reserve.
I would like to propose some changes for your consideration. First Nation electoral reform should necessarily support the existing federal electoral institutions, i.e. Parliament, and somehow promote the interests of not only First Nations, but also quite frankly participation and representation of women on chiefs and councils. I specifically put that in there because there is a dearth of female representation in local community politics on reserve. I can see that from the assemblies that attend, and also locally. I have one woman on my council right now.
Norway House has a proud history of having one of the first chiefs elected locally. And my granny was a chief as well. But the representation of women in local leadership is certainly something that could use a little bit of a push and support.
Any approach to electoral reform would also necessarily require a reaffirmation of the collective nature of First Nations' rights. That is what I was talking about earlier, while current Indian Act chiefs' and councils' powers are restricted in the act, council of the band, right. Even chiefs and councils elected by way of custom cannot deal with things that are collectively owned, i.e. land for instance.
We heard earlier about problems with the referendum process. The referendum process is essential. The reason why we have referendums, because you have to not only talk to chief and council, you have to talk to the band as a whole on certain issues. I think electoral reform needs to discuss that issue in terms of referenda.
To be consistent with our position, that was my position before earlier, with respect to the First Nations Governance Act. I think that tinkering with the Indian Act is a bad thing to do. Do not do it. Get INAC out of its fundamentally inherent conflictual nature of being the funder, playing local politics quite frankly, and being the appeal body as well.
I am going to go stop there.
The Chair: That is very good. Thank you, chief.
I would now invite Chief Kemp to make his five-minute presentation.
George Kemp, Chief, Berens River First Nation: In terms of what I see in this whole election process, it is a mess, with this mail-out system and the comments of Chief Balfour and Chief Hudson. There is great expectation from people living off the reserve in the voting process. It is a difficult thing to try and handle because, basically, you have non- constituents participating in an election that is basically making us administrators to administering Indian and Northern Affairs Canada money. In a lot of ways I do not even feel like a chief or political leader, I am just another bureaucrat for this system. I get no pensions, I get nothing in terms of after-my-political-life benefits. I get absolutely nothing. I walk away with the shirt on my back and that is it.
That is an issue that should be looked at because we are part of government, too, in terms of making the whole machinery work for Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. We are the front-line workers here. We have to handle everything in our jobs.
To me, those custom election codes do not work. Now in Manitoba, you see the situations, they are self-policing types of instruments that have no legal backbone to them. So if you get turmoil in the community, how do you ever pick a fair appeal committee? How do you ever determine what is fair?
Roseau River First Nation had an election on the same day under custom — there were two chiefs elected. So what do you do then?
There has to be some way of cleaning this whole thing up. To me, the fundamental issue here is self-government. I have always said that we will never see self-government because it involves creating a court system to police our government.
The federal and provincial governments of this land do not want to create another level of courts to call the "offsides" for our governments. That is why we do not get self-government.
Let us start with a little piece. Give us some jurisdiction in terms of on-reserve policing. Let us start with that. Because on-reserve policing is a big issue for us. The RCMP will not enforce a band council resolution. We try and make our own laws. We try and pass our own laws under the Indian Act. All we can do is pass laws legally to control weeds and dogs, that is it. So when we do try and talk about self-government, do our own laws, we cannot. We are hampered by the current Indian Act system.
So self-government, we lost that FAI agreement in Manitoba here at the AMC level. There was never anything put in place to deal with this. Now we have the idea that we should all have elections on the same day, every four years. That is not the answer because you get a bad chief and council. They can do a lot of damage to a band in four years. They can be in third party for 15 after that.
When I got in as chief, we were flat broke. Today, we presented a letter to the band membership showing we are less than 6 per cent in deficit. We are 2 per cent below the Indian and Northern Affairs Canada level. All bands should be forced to give out a financial statement from their bank directly to the people, so the people know where the band stands.
It is not fair to a new chief to come in flat broke, like I was, $4.2 million in the hole, and have to clean up a mess. The band members should know; every year there should be a letter posted from the bank saying this is your financial standing. That should be all part of the management regime and so that the electorate knows what is going on — because we, as people, do not know what is going on.
The Chair: Thank you.
Our last presenter is Ms. Starr.
Mary A. Starr, as an individual: I am from Sagkeeng First Nation. I have a cold right now, so just bear with me for a bit. My traditional name means "female bear comes like the wind."
I was raised in a traditional camp before I went to residential school. I was raised by elders who did not give up their traditional ways. And ever since, growing up all my life, I have always known that what I was learning, everything that I was being forced to learn was totally untrue. What I learned from my elders, to me, is the truth of what really happened to our people.
Throughout my whole life, I have always been a fighter. I have always been going against everything that the government and the system have been trying to impose on me and my family, my children. I have my grandchildren and great-grandchildren. I probably will be like that right until the day I die. I have every reason to be.
When we talk about the election, as it is set out in the Indian Act, that is just kind of like the legend of anybody can run for chief. It is kind of like we are just kind of waiting for another John Smith to come around or something to save us. I do not know. Anyway, as the elders said, that is one of the most dangerous pieces that was put into that election.
As I understand, that was supposed to be for the First Nations' people and like everything that was done to our people, our government always inserted whatever they wanted, using whatever they wanted to use to try and destroy a nation. The other thing, I do not know why a commission would go around and try and change the election code when you cannot even change the Act that protects the men and does not protect Indian women and children from the Matrimonial Property Act, and that is also in the Indian Act. A lot of children now suffer because of that Act. I do not see any changes being made on that.
I do not know why it is so important that you should go around all over the country now and try and get some input on elections. There are two bodies of government. There is Parliament and there is the Manitoba Legislature, and they can legislate and enact, just like that. I do not know why you have to go around. You hear our people all the time telling you what we need, what we want, and all it takes is enacting legislation.
Back in 1941 when the Canada Pension Plan Act came into place, the nuns were given back pay from 1901 to be inserted into the Canada Pension Plan Act, just like that. It was just done right in legislation. I do not know why you cannot do that for Aboriginal people. And yet the nuns were here to destroy us.
When you talk about costly appeals and costly everything, every time it comes to our needs and our demands, not demands, our wants, it is not demands, it is wants, it is needs, basic human rights needs, but it is always costly when it comes to us. That is how you set it up, to be costly, so that it will always look bad in the eyes of society here in Canada. That can all be changed, but nobody really wants to change it.
The apology I believe was just a hollow apology. Actual change has to take place. No more of these costly mistakes. That is for Mulroney and all those guys always screwing around and doing everything else they can. Leave our people alone and let them grow. Stop destroying our children. Let our children grow to be who they should grow in this country, our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren.
I am called "female bear who comes like the wind," and there is a reason for that. As I said, I was raised in that camp and I am a female bear when it comes to my children. I will protect. They tried to take that away at the residential school; well, I am back now. I am a grown woman. And if I have to fight for my children and if I have to fight like a bear does, so be it.
The Chair: Thank you.
I would like to thank all those who participated today. On behalf of committee members, we appreciate receiving the information.
(The committee adjourned.)