Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Aboriginal Peoples
Issue 15 - Evidence - Morning meeting
KELOWNA, British Columbia, Tuesday, September 29, 2009
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples met this day at 9:20 a.m. to study the federal government's constitutional, treaty, political and legal responsibilities to First Nations, Inuit and Metis peoples and on other matters generally relating to the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada (topic: issues pertaining to Indian Act elections).
Senator Gerry St. Germain (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning. On behalf of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples, I would like to welcome you here to Kelowna this morning. My name is Senator Gerry St. Germain from British Columbia. With me at the table are my colleagues, Senator Nancy Greene Raine on my right and Senator Larry Campbell, former mayor of Vancouver. All three of us are proud to represent the Province of British Columbia, and joining us this afternoon is Senator Lillian Dyck from Saskatchewan.
The purpose of our meetings today is to carry on with the committee's study of the Indian Act electoral reform. Thus far we have heard witnesses in Ottawa and Manitoba and we consider this Western tour to be a very important part of the study in that so many of the First Nations in British Columbia are affected by the election provisions under the Indian Act.
Before beginning the testimony this morning, I would like to offer some background on the committee's choice in embarking on this issue, and the committee's decision to study the issue of Indian Act elections is, in part, based on concerns raised by First Nations that the requirement under the Indian Act to have elections every two years makes it difficult for First Nations leaders to set long-term strategic direction as well as to plan for and implement sustainable processes before they must face another election. The frequency of elections can create uncertainty for community members. Having considered these concerns on April 1, 2009, this committee agreed to examine issues relating to the Indian Act elections.
The committee is seeking the views of affected First Nations with respect to three elements in particular: first, extension of the term of office for chiefs and council, which is currently two years under the Indian Act; second, establishment of common-day election dates; and third, possible removal mechanisms should terms of office be extended.
The committee began hearings in April 2009 and travelled to Winnipeg and Dauphin in Manitoba. The second leg of the travel is taking place here in B.C., as we hear from witnesses here in Kelowna, Williams Lake and Vancouver. In mid-October we plan to travel to New Brunswick and we will go to the cities of Fredericton and Miramichi. First Nations that currently hold elections under the Indian Act or that have recently converted to custom elections have comprised the majority of witnesses we have heard to date on this issue.
The committee is also setting aside a prescribed amount of time for open mic sessions where community members can voice their concerns and provide ideas.
Members of the committee anticipate tabling a final report in the Senate by the end of this year, 2009.
This morning we have with us Chief Tim Manuel from the Upper Nicola Indian Band, which is part of the Okanagan Nation.
We welcome you here, sir. We are honoured to have you here in our presence and we would like to hear your views relating to the elections process for picking the leadership and the governance of our First Nations. Possibly you could also tell us how your particular community selects their chief and council. You have the floor, sir.
Tim Manuel, Chief, Upper Nicola Indian Band: Thank you.
[The witness spoke in his native language, Okanagan.]
I would like to thank the Creator for this beautiful day, for allowing me to be here. I thank each of you senators for being here. Certainly I was not prepared to come as a witness, I was going to sit in the back, but I have the honour of representing my community. The Okanagan chiefs met on Thursday and stated that Chief Clarence Louie was intervening on behalf of the nation, or certainly before this Senate of Canada standing committee on election policy, and I just expressed an interest to be here.
What I said in my opening remarks was just to say hello to all of you. My Indian name is Petkwlax, meaning ``Nail to the Earth.'' My given name is Chief Timothy Manuel, Upper Nicola Band. My family follows a lineage of hereditary chieftainship that has been handed down since time immemorial. We can certainly go back nine generations in documenting the lineage.
We are part of the Okanagan Nation. We are situated in a very unique area. We have the Secwepemc to the north, the Shuswap, the Nlaka'pamux to the west, which is the Thompson. Our language is Okanagan, although we are not in the Okanagan watershed, we are in the Nicola watershed. The reason that we were put there was to mediate between the Shuswap and Okanagan in the mid-1700s. It was a war between the two nations, and what we call the Fish Lake Accord and the Shuswap-Okanagan Confederacy was established to stop the warring and build and strengthen the relationship.
That is a little bit of the background history of the Spaxomin Syilx, as we are called, as part of the traditional governance.
I want to quote Mr. Harper, who had stated that there was no colonialism in our country. Prior to, I think, the meetings that he had back East, he mentioned this, and it was quite a statement, from my own personal perspective. Over the last 150 years, certainly in B.C., and longer in this country, there has been a colonial government that has certainly established its own electoral and integrated reforms to First Nations people.
Prior to this, we had our own traditional governance that worked very well. As was stated earlier, my family comes from a lineage of chieftainship involved in taking care of this area and being mediators between the two nations. The traditional governance was established through a hunting chief, a fishing salmon chief, people who looked after certain hunting grounds, fishing grounds, so there was not just one chief, there were numerous chiefs, and you had a high chief.
We are looking at traditional governance in that perspective and wanting to recognize and bring that back. I think that has always been a struggle with my community, to bring back the recognition of our hereditary chiefs, not only in my community but I think in the nations. I think one of the other issues that people struggle with is you have a community chief and a political chief, certainly something to look at.
The Upper Nicola Indian Band adopted its custom election act in 2005 for a term of three years. We have one councillor per 100 members and a chief. We are currently sitting at 870 community members and a chief, so nine council members all together. They are elected, I think, in March of every three years. We have just changed it, we went from two years to three years.
The Chair: Thank you very much, chief. Are you prepared to answer questions?
Mr. Manuel: Yes.
Senator Campbell: Thank you very much for coming today. I was extremely interested in the history. That is an amazing story and one that I think needs to be told more often.
Do you think that three years is a long enough term? Does that give you continuity?
Mr. Manuel: Yes, it does.
Senator Campbell: You are happy with the three-year term and that process?
Mr. Manuel: Yes.
Senator Campbell: Can you tell me also do you put together an elected council and the hereditary council, the hereditary system of government? Do they go together, or are they parallel, or how does that work?
Mr. Manuel: It is something I think we are trying to bring back. We have not totally brought it back. I know that you look at other nations, like Squamish Nation, they have their hereditary chiefs, who are mostly families that represent their families, and they have an elected council. It is sort of something we want to look at as well, to have the hereditary chiefs with at least equal recognition in the affairs of the band, I mean looking at title and rights and economics, you know. It is something that has just been re-implemented, I think in our community, three years ago December.
Senator Campbell: How many hereditary chiefs would there be in your nation?
Mr. Manuel: To my knowledge I think there is three.
Senator Campbell: Over and above their responsibilities of looking at treaties, et cetera, would it be fair to say that they are the line that runs through your nation from the point of view of history, knowledge and background?
Mr. Manuel: Yes. My uncle is the hereditary chief, carries certainly a staff that was presented to him from King Edward VII and certainly a few medals from Pope Pius V. It would be my great, great grandfather, John Chillihitzia, went to England at the turn of the last century. I have been wondering where these staffs and these medallions are and if they are kept in a good, safe place. The recognition of the Crown of that staff and the medallions, I think, is important.
Senator Campbell: Yes.
The Chair: Just for clarification, chief, the community chief would be your Uncle Kerry?
Mr. Manuel: Uncle Dan.
The Chair: The political chief is you.
Mr. Manuel: The political chief is me, but it is my Uncle Dan who is the hereditary chief.
The Chair: Yes. You said you had a community chief and a political chief?
Mr. Manuel: No, I was talking about an idea to introduce both.
The Chair: Okay.
Mr. Manuel: No, no. We instated his chieftainship and his name, because my family has carried the staff that was handed down from my great, great grandfather, Chief Chillihitzia, back at the turn of the century, I think, 1906, given to him by King Edward VII and Pope Pius V, the medallions.
At that time there was infringement of title and he had sought to go to Ottawa to talk to the leadership of the day, upon which he was turned down and went to England and went to see the Pope, and these were the highest forms of government of the day, to bring forward his concerns. They acknowledged who he was and presented him with the staff and honoured him with the 1763 Royal Proclamation of the recognition of First Nations and the Crown alliance.
The Chair: The other question that I would have, for clarification, is do you visualize the ideal situation would be to go back to the traditional ways of totally hereditary chiefs or do you think that the society that has evolved around First Nations dictates that there be a political chief? The Gitxsan, with their houses, really would like to see themselves governed under the wilps, which is the various clans within the Gitxsan Nation. Have you a view on that?
Mr. Manuel: I would like to see that. The chiefs were hand-picked, they were groomed from a young age, whereas an elected one is the flavour of the day, so to speak. Excuse my pun, but it is people who are the favourites for a while. The tradition was to pick a leader; he was groomed from childhood, he was taught the traditions, the culture, the language, the history of his position, trained to take over when the outgoing chief saw fit that it was time to hand over the leadership and become an elder. The electoral system today is just not working.
Senator Raine: I am new to the committee and I am also new to understanding how governance takes place in the various First Nations across our country. There are traditions and customs and then there are impositions by the Indian Act, and I know that it has caused a lot of problems. When the Upper Nicola Band, three years ago, decided to implement custom elections, can you walk me through that evolution? Prior to that, were you doing elections under the Indian Act?
Mr. Manuel: Yes.
Senator Raine: How did the band come to make the decision and how did it evolve that you actually went to your own customs?
Mr. Manuel: Certainly it was the concerns of the membership, as Senator St. Germain outlined in his opening statement that many First Nations had complained that two years was not enough. It went to a few general band meetings at the time and the membership had raised the issue and said that it was something we wanted to look at and incorporate, a custom election act. I cannot think off the top of my head how many band meetings it went to, but I think it went to seven or eight drafts of the Custom Election Act before it was passed, probably close to a year and one or two months later. The first draft would come back to the membership, they would give input or delete certain items in the election act and then send it back. The staff and the council would look at it, bring it back to the membership at another meeting, discuss it some more, add more clauses into the act and eventually it was passed.
Senator Raine: When you were going through this process, was a special committee of the council set up for it?
Mr. Manuel: Yes, there was. I think there were four or five in a working group. After the general band meetings, this working group would meet separately and then bring the recommendations and changes to the membership for ratification.
Senator Raine: Was the chief at the time supportive of the process?
Mr. Manuel: Oh, yes.
Senator Raine: If your band holds elections under the Indian Act, there is support and funding from the federal government toward the costs of holding those elections, whereas if you go to a custom situation, there is no financial support. Did this play a negative role? How was that received by the group?
Mr. Manuel: It was accepted by everybody. It was fine. I think our elections over the last two terms were never more than $8,000 or $9,000. We have used other resource revenue from our forestry to offset that cost.
Senator Raine: It was seen as worth the expense to be able to do it yourself.
Mr. Manuel: You bet.
Senator Raine: Have you had two elections under custom or just the one?
Mr. Manuel: Two.
Senator Raine: You are into your fourth year, I guess.
Mr. Manuel: Sorry, it is just one. We ratified it to three years prior to the last election in the spring of 2008.
Senator Raine: You actually ratified it in 2005.
Mr. Manuel: Yes, we ratified it in 2005, but I think it is still a working document. There are still a few clauses, areas that need to be tweaked a little to the satisfaction of understanding, because some of it needs to be more specific. I think one of the issues is the deadline for nominations as to when they had to be in, if it had to be brought in like a nomination paper, signed and handed in to the electoral officer, had to be either faxed or brought in and handed personally to the electoral officer, so there needs to be clarification on that. It was certainly an issue in the last election.
Senator Raine: Yes, little things like that can rise up. In the end, would you say that it would probably be simple to resolve?
Mr. Manuel: Yes. It is on the general band meeting agenda to review and correct.
Senator Raine: Chief Manuel, when you started the process, I am sure you went out and looked at other First Nations across the province, perhaps across Canada, who had custom codes. Did you find there was a common thread going through and you could benefit from their experience?
Mr. Manuel: In what sense?
Senator Raine: In drafting your own election code, it would probably help if you looked at others and said, ``Maybe we can take things from this one or that one,'' or did you just start from scratch?
Mr. Manuel: We certainly did not reinvent the wheel. We did look at other models that were working and implemented parts of them into ours.
Senator Raine: Were you on the committee that studied it?
Mr. Manuel: No.
Senator Raine: It is probably not fair for me to ask, then, because you would not have seen them all. Custom election codes, I presume, have been around for a long time, and have evolved over the years.
Mr. Manuel: I am not sure of the history on how long these custom elections have been around. I think probably maybe since the 1970s.
Senator Raine: Going forward, you are looking at ways that you can incorporate into your custom code a respect of the heritage and the lineage as well as some kind of advisory capacity?
Mr. Manuel: Do you mean the hereditary chieftainship?
Senator Raine: Yes.
Mr. Manuel: Certainly an advisory capacity would be the minimum, but sitting right around the council table as well. We want that recognition and that is certainly something we would support.
We have had some discussion, but never formalized any agreement with the present council. There seems to be a split when it comes to a decision, because some people think that two chiefs may not work. I know that the Stl'atl'imx Bands, which are part of the Lillooet Bands, have incorporated a community chief and a political chief, each having their own roles, and that is something we certainly want to look at and hopefully incorporate one day. The community chief would look after the hunting and the fishing, feeding the elders, maybe hauling wood for some of the elders. Some of the elders use wood-burning stoves, so hauling wood, ensuring that the community is taken care of in that sense.
The political chief would come to meetings like this, represent the community in the government-to-government discussions and negotiations with certainly the regional districts, the provincial and federal governments.
Senator Raine: Which chief would look after allocating housing?
Mr. Manuel: I would say both.
Senator Raine: The whole council?
Mr. Manuel: Yes, because it is incorporating both. I mean looking after the people and one talking to the minister or to allocate the funding or to certainly lobby for more funding for housing.
Senator Raine: When you were talking about how it was done when it was a hereditary system, you said that the future chief would be picked at an early age. Who would do the picking?
Mr. Manuel: Certainly the one who was the chief and probably the elders in the community.
Senator Raine: They would look at the children of the chief and his brothers, perhaps, and sisters and see who showed leadership capacity or talent.
Mr. Manuel: Yes, exactly.
Senator Raine: It would be a generational thing. It would not necessarily be the son of the son of the son, it would be this generation choosing the next generation early enough so they could be groomed, educated and trained.
Mr. Manuel: Yes, exactly.
Senator Raine: When people think of hereditary chiefs, they think of the system in England, where it is the eldest son of the eldest son of the eldest son, which is not always the best way, because if that person happens to not have an aptitude or desire to be the king. Picking from one generation to the next is a much better system.
Mr. Manuel: I am certainly an example of that. I have two older brothers who have had no political ambition to fulfill this role in any sense. My late father, grandfather, his father and so on were chiefs and certainly the lineage has been there. As you mentioned, I was just hand-picked. I would not say I was hand-picked at a young age, but certainly had many good influences from elders, my late father in his position and his teachings.
Senator Raine: When you say ``at a young age,'' you were maybe around 10 or 12 years old?
Mr. Manuel: Probably a little younger than that.
Senator Raine: At that point, was learning your language part of that training?
Mr. Manuel: Part of it, yes, although I am not fluent. I do understand some of it and do speak it, but again because of the legacies of residential school, my parents never taught it to us. My dad was a walking dictionary when it came to the language, but the sad part about it was he never took the time to teach because of his experience in residential school, having it beaten out of him to speak the language.
Senator Raine: I think I have a much better understanding of how the lineage works.
Mr. Manuel: With the hand-picking, it was not just a chieftainship, but the entire community and other children were picked for hunters, fishermen or gatherers. They were picked to do these jobs at a young age as well.
Senator Raine: Is this still happening in your communities?
Mr. Manuel: Not prominently, but there are a few individuals. I have a 31-month-old son who might want to do the same. We will teach him the language, teach him everything that I was taught, living off the land and that is how it works. I mean, they say that most development occurs up to six years old, that that is when they learn the most.
Senator Raine: Yes.
Mr. Manuel: He is just like a little sponge. He knows how to smudge now; he is only 31 months old. He knows how to speak some of the language, he knows about the sweat lodge. I have taken him to the sweat lodge. So certainly at that age, they are just very open to learning and very willing.
Senator Raine: I gather there is a whole group of people in your community doing this sort of thing. You are not the only one?
Mr. Manuel: We have womanhood and manhood training. The young women who come of age certainly go through the rituals of training for womanhood, the same with the young men. The time when the young boy's voice starts to change, they start training, they start taking them to the mountain, taking them to the sweat lodge, working with the hunters and the fishermen, doing ceremonies. That is certainly a part of the traditional governance of grooming future leaders. We are doing that today.
The Chair: Is your custom code on-line?
Mr. Manuel: Yes, it should be. If not, we can certainly provide you a copy.
The Chair: Further to what Senator Raine has asked you, are elders in the community teaching language?
Mr. Manuel: Yes.
The Chair: Is your language a written language?
Mr. Manuel: We have had to incorporate that. It was developed out of a course in Missoula, Montana in the late 1970s, early 1980s. My late father actually went into Missoula, Montana, to learn to write the language, and they have brought it back and the nation certainly is taking steps to work on reviving the language. We have a band school, an independent school, in our community. My aunt, who is fluent, has been teaching it and we do have another elder who comes into the Head Start, where my son is going to school, she teaches them the language as well. Then we hold language camps every summer for about a month for the entire community to learn, so yes, we are taking every step.
The Chair: In Manitoba, a group of chiefs want to get out from under the Indian Act. They are talking about having an ombudsman as the person to whom people who feel that their rights are being affected would make representations. Do you feel that this is necessary in the system? Say the entire Okanagan First Nations decided to set up an electoral system for the political selection of chiefs, and if somebody felt, for example, that a particular council or particular chiefs were not operating in a manner that was fair, they would be able to seek counsel through the ombudsman. Was that ever a subject of discussion in your Okanagan chief conferences?
Mr. Manuel: No.
The Chair: Never?
Mr. Manuel: No.
Senator Raine: Does everybody in your band live on the reserve or are some living off the reserve? For those who are living off the reserve, how do they participate in the elections?
Mr. Manuel: We have approximately 870 band members and about 450 live on reserve and the other 400 live off reserve. The ones who live off reserve — this is another area we want look at with mail-in ballots and faxing — the current election code says that they need to come to the community, either to vote on the election day or by — what do they call the early vote?
Senator Raine: They have to physically come and vote?
Mr. Manuel: Yes, but the band does provide transportation. I think a good portion of them live in the community of Merritt, which is half an hour outside the community. The band does provide the necessary means to get to the polling stations.
The Chair: Do you have mail-in ballots?
Mr. Manuel: No. I was just mentioning that is something we want to incorporate as well.
Senator Raine: What percentage of the 420 off reserve people actually come and vote? Is it a pretty high percentage or not high enough?
Mr. Manuel: I do not think it is high enough. I think we have had only half of the community members who were eligible voters, 18 and older. We have quite a large percentage of 18 and under. We have had a huge baby boom in the last 20 years. I think 470, around there, were eligible voters. We had, I think, maybe a minimum of 300 in the last election come out.
Senator Raine: Did you check to see if the percentages were about the same on reserve and off reserve?
Mr. Manuel: No.
Senator Raine: You did not do that, but you are anxious to have everybody who is a registered band member vote.
Mr. Manuel: We certainly have the same problem as Canada and B.C. People do not bother to vote. They do not like the candidates or they just choose not to vote?
The Chair: You reverted to the custom from section 74 of the Indian Act because you wanted to extend your mandate. When you went through this process were you involved in the whole process? What could you recommend to this committee that would improve things to expedite the change from section 74 to the custom election? Did you run into any obstacles that you would like to see changed under the process?
Mr. Manuel: I was on council at the time. I sat as a councillor when the past chief, Fred Holmes, and the council undertook the transformation from the Indian Act to custom election in 2005. We worked with the community. A lot of due diligence was done, a lot of work.
It would certainly help to have legal counsel to review some of these amendments, to review these electoral acts and the capacity funding in order to assist some of the bands in the process. It takes effort, money and expertise to go from section 74 to custom elections. It is very time-consuming. Again the band incorporated its own revenue from forestry to offset that cost, but other bands or smaller bands that want to do this certainly do not have that capacity. I think that is probably the two, there.
Senator Raine: Would you have a ballpark figure on what it costs in terms of lawyers and consultants to go through that process, what your total cost was? How much did it cost to draw up the code?
Mr. Manuel: I would say 40 grand easy.
Senator Raine: Then there is probably a lot of First Nations that would love to do it, but do not have the means.
Mr. Manuel: Yes.
The Chair: Did you receive any technical help from the department at all?
Mr. Manuel: I cannot recall. I know a lot of us were on the working committee looking at other models in British Columbia.
Senator Raine: Are people happier with the new custom election code, or do they notice any difference?
Mr. Manuel: I think the elected council is a little happier to have a little longer term in which to carry out a mandate. I think this is like any other situation in the general public: Some people are never happy with the leadership or who is in power. I think for the most part the membership are happy that the council has time to focus on carrying out a mandate over a little longer time.
Senator Raine: I am really pleased you appeared. We have witnesses who are under section 74. I was really interested to hear somebody who had gone through the transition. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you, chief. If you have no other comments, if something does come up, would you mind if we called you?
Mr. Manuel: Yes, please do.
The Chair: Possibly you could leave your contact information with the clerk.
Mr. Manuel: I have one question or comment: I guess what the present government is looking at today is a one-day election for the entire leadership of the country? Is that what they are looking at?
Senator Raine: We have talked about that, an established voting day that would be common across all bands.
The Chair: I do not know how it would evolve because you would not want to change everybody at one time. Maybe you would want to split your council it and have an election every three years for half of it. That way there would be a certain amount of continuity. We are studying this proposal. The Association of Manitoba Chiefs have been working on such a proposal. There has been, right across the country, concern with the term of two years. You cannot implement anything in two years. By the time a new chief gets elected and learns where everything is, he or she is right back into another campaign. I have been on this committee for 15 years, so I know the frustrations that are out there. Then you have third-party management situations that cost bands money. There is a litany of problems out there and that is why we have undertaken this study.
We are certainly not here to tell First Nations people what they should do, but to assemble information and write a report. Hopefully the First Nations will be able to act on it and take from it what they feel is necessary to improve their governance. There is no question that governance is key to allowing First Nations to become educated, providing economic development and various other aspects.
Senator Raine: Tim, I just wondered if you had any comments on a common day for all elections.
Mr. Manuel: It is certainly a question to ponder. I first heard about it from Grand Chief Stewart Phillip on Thursday. Again, looking at the consultative process with First Nations, it is important to ask them what their thoughts are. It would probably turn INAC upside down, especially if you are going to change half of the leadership and you do not know the new councillors or chiefs coming in or what is going on. That certainly would be a challenge not just to the communities, but to probably INAC itself.
That is an idea that could be tossed around. Certainly the provincial and the federal elections fall on one day as well. Again it would have to be a consultation process with many First Nations to see how they feel about that. The recognition legislation that was proposed in B.C. was put out to the community members; they went beyond the leadership. Individuals raised a lot of feelings and concerns and they were not good. You would have to pose the question at the grassroots. Certainly I am prepared to do that at a general band meeting.
Senator Raine: Suffice to say it is not a burning issue at this point.
Mr. Manuel: No, not at all.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Chief Manuel.
Senators, we now have before us Chief Wayne Christian from the Spallumcheen First Nation.
Chief, welcome. The committee is here studying the issue of Indian Act elections. Concerns have been raised by First Nations that the requirement under the Indian Act to have elections every two years has made it difficult for First Nations to set long-term strategic plans and as well to implement sustainable processes before they face another election. This is certainly not anything that will be imposed on First Nations. This study is merely to try to come up with suggestions for the problems that are out there right across the country. We have been to Manitoba and have heard witnesses from various other areas of the country. We hope to travel to the Atlantic provinces as well.
We have come to B.C. because I think B.C. has the highest number of First Nations that elect under section 74 of the Indian Act.
Please proceed with your presentation, after which senators would like to pose a few questions.
Wayne Christian, Chief, Spallumcheen First Nation: Thank you.
[The witness spoke in his native language, Secwepemc.]
Before I began, I wanted to honour the Talkamuk, the ancestors of this territory. That is part of our protocol as we come into different parts of what we call Kamukulu, our Indian lands in British Columbia.
I would like to thank the committee for allowing me this time with you this morning.
I do not have a written presentation, but I will prepare one for submission. I do not have the resources that you have at your disposal, researchers and lawyers and clerks and all that stuff. I am just a lowly chief.
The Chair: We could lend you a few.
Mr. Christian: I would not mind.
Like I said, I am the chief of the community called Spallumcheen. We are a member of the Secwepemc Nation, the Shuswap Nation. In total we have 17 communities, 10,000 members. At one time we had 32 communities with about 50,000 members, but again the advent of small pox and all those issues decimated our population.
Our traditional territory goes north to Quesnel, east into the foothills of the Rockies of Alberta, west to the Fraser River, south to our community in Spallumcheen and over into Invermere.
I think it is important, as I begin, that we start this process for me in the context of our contact with the nation of Canada. In 1763 the Royal Proclamation, if you do not know your history, laid out the parameters for our nation-to- nation process with Canada. It talks about Indian nations and as a result of that, across Canada, we have a number of treaties. We have a number of processes where Canada entered into agreements with the nations. In British Columbia, as you know, that has not happened. We have been in a process that is called a treaty process, but we do not see it as that.
Canada came to be in 1867. That is why you are here. Part of that is section 91.24 of the British North America Act, Indians and lands reserved for Indians. Out of that federal Section 91.24 came the Indian Act. The terms of our relationship with Canada were defined through the Indian Act. It was imposed upon us. When we speak today about the Indian Act regulations, I think we need to know the context, and that in terms of our relationship, we never had the opportunity to discuss that piece of legislation with Canada.
What I mean by that is in 1910, the leaders from the interior, the Secwepemc, the Salish and the Thompson, presented a memorial to Sir Wilfred Laurier, the Prime Minister of the day, and we outlined very clearly in that memorial the nation-to-nation relationship in terms of how we would govern ourselves, how we would manage the resources and how we would care for the continuous relationship between us and Canada. We spoke of such things as standing each other up to be great and good. We know the history from 1910, the history of the residential schools and the history of the legislation to take our lands. Here we are today, after almost one hundred years, still seeking that nation-to nation relationship.
The 1982 Constitution Act contains section 35.(1) which talks about existing aboriginal treaty rights. There have been numerous court cases that talk about aboriginal title, rights and governance over traditional territory, not just the reserve lands. I think it is really important to understand that today, when we talk of governance, it should not be isolated to the Indian Act.
Why I say that, on September 13, 2007, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People was proclaimed at the United Nations. As you know, there were four countries at that time that voted against it, Canada was one of them, the United States, Australia and New Zealand the others. Since then we understand that Australia has voted for the UN declaration.
I want to read into the record Article 43:
The rights recognized herein constitute the minimum standards for survival, dignity and wellbeing of indigenous people of the world.
We see these as minimum standards.
The first four articles speak directly to governance and the issue of self-determination. Article 1 states that:
Indigenous people have the right to the full enjoyment as a collective or as individuals of all human rights and fundamental freedoms as recognized in the Charter of United Nations, UN Declaration of Human Rights and international human rights laws.
The reason that article is so important is that our rights to the land are human rights. Our rights to govern ourselves are human rights. They are not just isolated as political rights, they are human rights in the context of the world community and I think that is important.
Article 2 reads as follows:
Indigenous people and individuals are free and equal to all other peoples or individuals and have the right to be free from any kind of discrimination in the exercise of their rights, in particular that based on their indigenous origin or identity.
We understand that the legislation we are talking about on governance is race-based legislation. It is because we are Indians. I think it is important to understand that in that context it creates discrimination. It is the the most racist piece of legislation, I believe, in the world, because it dictates our life. It has done so since inception, from basically birth until death, and we do not have a say. I was chief for a time when I was younger and we introduced custom election regulations in 1984. We are still debating that proposal today, and as recently as two months ago, when we tried to introduce it again, the minister — he is the one who has the final say — and his staff rejected it. Basically we were told we could not enter into that arrangement and if we did, our funding would be jeopardized. That is the sort of control that they have over us.
It is really important to understand that we do not have the right to make our own decisions in the context of governance and in the context of legislation.
Article 3 provides that:
Indigenous people have the right to self-determination by virtue of their right to freely determine their political status and pursue freely their economic, social and cultural development.
This is really critical in the context of British Columbia. You mentioned it earlier, senator. British Columbia has 204 communities, we have approximately 25 to 30 language groupings, and even in the context of our Secwepemc Nation, we speak one language, but we are self-contained and we all have the ability to speak for ourselves. We have never had a central form of government in the Secwepemc Nation. We have always had processes where we work in kinship and divisions with each other, very similar to regional governments. In our community, for example, we work closely with Adams Lake and Neskonlith and Little Shuswap and the Shuswap Indian Band. The five bands look after what is considered the Lakes Division, the Shuswap, you know, Merritt, all the lakes within our territory. We collectively govern ourselves in that manner and there is not ``the reserve system.''
The Chair: Where is Spallumcheen?
Mr. Christian: It is located right next to Enderby. It is really important to understand that when we talk of the right of self-determination, we really believe we have the right to speak for ourselves. Nobody outside of our community can speak for us, whether they are an organization like the Leadership Council, the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, BCAFN and the First Nations Summit in British Columbia. We really believe strongly that we as communities speak for ourselves in process. It is really important to understand that concept.
Article 4 states that:
Indigenous people, in exercising their right to self-determination, have the right to autonomy or self government in matters relating to their internal and local affairs as well as ways and means for financing their autonomous functions.
This is really critical because governance is tied directly to the land question in British Columbia, as we see it. If the land question is resolved and we can actually participate in the riches of our land, can actually govern ourselves, we will be able to move forward. Like I said, in 1910 we tabled a memorial or declaration with the prime minister of the day. Maybe the Liberal government will be in power in 2010. We are hoping because we are inviting the prime minister to the celebration, the 100-year anniversary. Understanding that concept of governance and the Indian Act, which was imposed upon us, will enable us to change those dynamics today. We are talking about section 35.(1) governance rights, that we have the right to determine our own future in the context of our ability to govern ourselves and who we freely elect to speak for our people. That is really important.
Like I said, I was elected the first time in 1977. I was chief for close to ten years. We acted on a two-year system, that is the Indian Act regulation, section 74, and it was very difficult. You get something going and then basically the election comes up. Today, we are still under that provision of the Indian Act. There has to be some fundamental changes in how that process to make it more useful for our people.
I heard the discussion you were having with the chief before me about having sort of a national day of elections across the country and simplifying things, or just British Columbia. We have talked about that as chiefs in the Secwepemc Nation. We have to get a process that everyone actually really understands. We probably will be electing nation spokespeople through that process, through one ballot, by having the people decide who actually speaks for the people, a democratic process. We are looking at those forms of governance for ourselves.
I think in the context of looking at the regulations, it is important we look at the land question.
What I will to do, there is a paper that was commissioned by myself and it is called ``Towards Recognition of Inherent Rights as Indigenous People''. I will not go into the full length, because it is about 40 pages long. It covers the range of issues: inherent rights and powers of indigenous people; land systems based on our indigenous laws; the UN declaration as it relates to self-determination, indigenous people, lands, territories and resource rights under the United Nation Declaration; prior informed consent; constitutional reform in terms of the current constitutional framework. In the context of constitutional reform and section 35, it really is about looking at recognition of aboriginal title. Only with recognition of aboriginal title in its true form and its true sense constitutionally will you truly get a governance system that represents our people in the process.
The fourth area we speak about is the federal claims policy, policy reform. The federal comprehensive claims policy dictates the relationship between Canada, British Columbia and the nations in British Columbia. It is very limiting and speaks of extinguishment. In terms of the opinions that we have received, it is illegal and is seen as such even in the treaty negotiations guidelines that are supposedly in the treaty negotiation process.
Other aspects of the paper: true reconciliation, which is before the courts. It has been talked about time and time again that that we need true reconciliation as a fundamental change in terms of how we reconcile with Canada and how we reconcile with British Columbia. I will submit those pieces of paper formally now.
Like I said, I will also submit a formal brief in the context of governance, which is more than just the Indian Act.
The Chair: Are you in full agreement with this document?
Mr. Christian: Yes, I am. I had it commissioned, actually.
The authors of it have signed off on it. They are indigenous lawyers. As well, I will put what I outlined earlier in a more formal submission and table it with you.
The Chair: Your report will be tabled, sir, and used as evidence.
Senator Campbell: Thank you very much for giving us the background. This will come as no surprise to anybody, but yet again, we hear about threats from INAC. My preference would be that INAC is terminated tomorrow and we go in some other direction, allowing the First Nations to have a say in what they do, but that is, I guess, for another time.
Is having an election across Canada for all First Nations on the same day a burning issue?
Mr. Christian: Honestly, no. In some parts of the country it is and in other parts it is not. It is an issue because we are so diverse. There are, I believe, 650 communities across Canada.
Senator Campbell: It would not be difficult, for instance, if regionally you all got together and said, ``You know what? We will all do it on the same day.'' There is nothing to stop you from doing that?
Mr. Christian: No, there is nothing.
Senator Campbell: In reading through all of my briefs, here, there seems to be a fairly significant emphasis on looking at removal or recall of chiefs or councillors. It just stuck out because as a former mayor, it was not something that I ever thought about. In fact when I read the literature, I do not even know if they could do it short of me committing certain offences. Is this a big deal within your community?
Mr. Christian: Accountability is a big issue definitely in terms of process, how it is managed. Again if the people are making the rules, the people can enforce them. For example, our community holds regular community sessions to update the community, you know, divulge financial information. It is an accountability issue and recall, or the issue of having somebody resign in process, right now, is dictated by the Indian Act. Our people do not like it. If we had systems in place, we could do our own process for accountability for our elected officials.
Senator Campbell: As an elected official or as hereditary chief, what is to keep you from following that process, from having open committee meetings, council meetings or community meetings? Does INAC say you cannot do that?
Mr. Christian: No. There are no rules, actually, in INAC for governing that kind of process.
Senator Campbell: You can do that.
Mr. Christian: We can do that openly and we do.
Senator Campbell: You said that you wanted to revert to custom and you were told that you could not, that if you did there might be financial recriminations. I note that the rules set up for you to revert to custom are fairly onerous, considering all you are asking for is to go back to what you did historically, which, in listening to you and the former chief, worked very well even among nations.
Do you have any idea why these regulations are in place? Is this simply the White guys telling you what you should do?
Mr. Christian: To be totally blunt it is because of the land question and the removal of our hereditary system. That is why the elected system is in place. The hereditary leaders, the hereditary chiefs held the knowledge of the land, knowledge of the land question, the rich oral history that covered our laws. We have got a chronology of all our elected leaders from contact and you can see that we had a hereditary system in place until the Indian agents began to enforce matters in our communities and get our leadership to sign off on things. That is when it began to fall down actually, shortly after the second world war. We started to lose the ability to have that voice, that traditional or hereditary voice at the table.
In speaking about the rules and regulations that define the custom system, how can somebody define your customs for you? I really believe that Indian Affairs is part of the problem. I totally agree with what you said earlier, they should be totally disbanded and done away with. They are nothing but an impediment to our freedom.
Senator Campbell: What they always say is, ``Well, they signed off on it.'' Do you truly believe that when the hereditary chiefs signed off on that process that they had full knowledge and all of the information involved when they signed off?
Mr. Christian: No. Historical documents and even a lot of the legal cases will show you that the hereditary chiefs were not fully informed on what they were signing and agreeing to.
Senator Campbell: You would agree, then, that a three-year term is a good thing?
Mr. Christian: Yes, I would agree.
Senator Campbell: Is it long enough? I mean from a municipal point of view, it was three years; it was about a year and a half too long for me. In real life, is that a long enough term?
Mr. Christian: I think realistically three to four years in a staggered process, where we have continuous people at the table who can keep the agenda flowing, is good. That is the issue, having a process where we have elected officials and leaders who have continuous knowledge, because the issues are becoming so complex and legalistic that we have to stay on top of things.
The Chair: The Grand Chief of the Association of Manitoba Chiefs the said, ``All I do at meetings is brief new people on what is taking place,'' and he says, ``It is just a revolving door.'' He says, ``We cannot get anything done. At least a quarter are new members and we are trying to keep them up-to-date.''
Senator Raine: Thank you very much for being here, Chief Christian. I would like to hear more on why exactly you were turned down in your request for custom election. How did the process go? It sounds like you started in 1980, that is a long time ago, and other bands have gotten custom elections in the meantime.
Mr. Christian: As Senator Campbell mentioned earlier, it is an onerous process in terms of the whole evolution to the custom election regulations. We actually went to a referendum over a year ago to decide whether we would move in the direction of custom elections and the community agreed. We began a process with Indian Affairs to table regulations with them. We had in place regulations that we had been working on for close to 20 years. When I got re- elected, I said, ``Honestly, what the hell are we doing? Why don't we just go ahead with this?''
When we tabled them with Indian Affairs, again their regulations stipulate you have to have it done within a certain time for it come to force and effect for our elections that are coming up in a couple of months. They said there was not enough lead time for that to take place and that if we forced it our funding may be jeopardized because — again it is under their regulations — we would not be recognized under the Indian Act. That is primarily what they said. It is Indian Affairs doing what they do best.
Senator Raine: Will you continue to press for custom elections?
Mr. Christian: No doubt we will. We are actually looking at section 35 governance now, rather than the Indian Act, quite honestly, because we see that process that Indian Affairs follows as impossible. We cannot interact with them, especially around governance, because they try to dictate everything that we do.
Senator Raine: Section 35 is what?
The Chair: That establishes Aboriginal people under the constitutional process. Aboriginal peoples are Indians, Metis and Inuit.
Senator Raine: That might be an even bigger hurdle.
Mr. Christian: That is the challenge we have before us if we truly want to believe that governance will work for us in terms of how we interact with Canada and British Columbia. It has to be done at that level. As you all know, you hear continuous horror stories of how they continue to, as I say, do what they do best, which is nothing.
Senator Raine: If you have an election every three years and want to keep continuity, that means you would be electing new people to the board every year and a half. Maybe it is better to go with four years with every two years an election for half the council.
Mr. Christian: For a three-year process, the people who won the most votes would be in for three years, and the next ones would come in a year later, even two years later, and go three years. It is a staggered process with overlap, and that is the way the regulations would be designed. You are actually doing initially probably a two-year term, but after that, everybody would be doing a three-year term or a four-year term, depending on what is decided.
Senator Raine: Would you have an election every year?
Mr. Christian: The first time would be a two-year process; the least number would stay for two years, then you just start evolving. When that election goes, they would go for three years and it just evolves so there is overlap.
Senator Raine: The new ones would go for two, almost like a trial period, and then three.
Mr. Christian: Yes. It would be an overlap process.
Senator Raine: How many of your people live on reserve and off reserve?
Mr. Christian: We have a total population of close to 800. We have in our community about 500 people. In our territory, there are about 200, and we have about a hundred scattered throughout the world, primarily North America.
Senator Raine: Would you envision everybody having a right to vote in the elections?
Mr. Christian: Yes.
Senator Raine: Then you would want them to come in person or by mail in?
Mr. Christian: There are many ways that can be done today. For example, with the law cases that have come down in our current election system, getting people involved is something we have always maintained we should have done. It actually happened a number of years ago, when I was chief the first time, and it was contested because it was not under the Indian Act. We thought everybody should be involved. That was in the 1970s and 1980s.
Senator Raine: That was the provision that said they had to be —
Mr. Christian: They had to be ordinarily resident on reserve. Even that is interesting because the council members have to be ordinarily resident, the chief does not. The chief does not even have to be Indian, because under the regulations, the former prime minister, Jean Chrétien, was nominated as chief of one of the communities. I do not think he won, though.
Senator Raine: Do you have a system of hereditary leadership in the band?
Mr. Christian: Yes, we do.
Senator Raine: Is that being maintained?
Mr. Christian: We are reviving it right now. Our system of governance, honestly, was around families. Family heads would get together, the males and the females, and that is the process we are starting to re-establish.
The residential school fractured our families, and we are having a very difficult time. The family system was one where the families took care of the family and we did not have to run to the band office or to government. We are trying to revive that form of governance again as our traditional structure. It is taking us some time, but we are moving in that direction.
Senator Raine: It would make sense that if you are going to have that responsibility as a family you would have some representation as a family.
Mr. Christian: That is right, exactly. Then the voice of the family is there and it is then the process of decision- making, consensus and how that would evolve. As I said, because of the residential school we are having a difficult time reconstructing the families again, honestly. Families were fragmented so much by the residential school system.
Senator Raine: Are you optimistic?
Mr. Christian: It will be done. I am not optimistic. It is going to happen in my lifetime.
Senator Raine: That would be great.
Mr. Christian: The reason I say that is I have seven children and 15 grandchildren, and we can have an influence on how it happens.
The Chair: All by yourself.
Mr. Christian: It is important. In the 1960s scoop, I was taken away into foster care. I was disconnected from my family, my language, my culture, and I came back and helped rebuild what I had lost. My mom spoke four languages, but she only taught me English because of what she experienced in residential school. I am typical, if you will, of a lot of the leaders who are involved in our communities. We see that the evolution of our people rests in our families and how we restore language, and that is really a critical piece of the puzzle.
Senator Raine: Are there resources for this?
Mr. Christian: The issue of resources, and I hear this continuously, is that we are a burden on the taxpayers. Indians do not pay taxes, we do not contribute to the economy. I have heard this since the 1970s, actually, and honestly, I am a little fed up with it. We do contribute. The reason I say that is that all my children work off reserve. They have mortgages, they pay taxes and they contribute to the economy. Even our community contributes to the local economy because we do not have all the goods and services. We purchase them. We have been contributing to the local economy millions of dollars. When you talk of resources, for us it is really about resources off the territory.
We did a study on the stumpage fees that the provincial government took off our traditional territory in a four-year period. It was $1.41 billion in stumpage that was taken off our territory. If we received a percentage of that to operate and to interact and to run our own governance process, we would have no problems with the issue of resources. That is just one sector, the forestry sector.
That is why I spoke earlier about why the title issue is so important in terms of having the ability to make decisions and co-manage systems on our land. We do not want handouts. We have been forced into a system where we are wards of government. We are not wards. We are people, we are Secwepemc, we are Salish, we are Indians. We are not wards of the government.
The Chair: You are celebrating a hundredth anniversary, and you indicated that you had a preference for the government that would be in power. Is there really any difference who is in or who is out? I am a Metis and I have been watching this whole thing and I do not see any difference. Maybe you can explain why you see a difference.
Mr. Christian: In 1910, we submitted a declaration memorial to Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who was the Prime Minister of Canada. It was a Liberal government, he was the longest standing prime minister. Trudeau tried to beat him, but that never happened. For us it is symbolic more than anything else.
I agree that it does not seem to matter which government is in power, because it is the bureaucrats who run the country. The system of bureaucracy in Canada governs for itself. If you were to ask ordinary Canadians, they would say it is a waste of money because of the goods and services that are delivered.
You say that the political leaders can make promises and change laws, but it is the bureaucrats who make it happen. That system has not changed.
Senator Campbell: I am interested in this concept of staggering, because unless you have a really bad council and chief, chances are some of them will be re-elected in the next election, which is how it carries on. You have the hereditary chiefs who maintain your history and who help carry it forward, and you are trying to revive that system.
In municipal government, history is maintained by the infrastructure, and mayors come and mayors go but the city manager is there forever. I am just wondering if within your structure there is that kind of infrastructure. I realize that you do not have 600,000 people, but is there, for instance, somebody who would be considered the city manager in your nation, or is that constantly changing also?
Mr. Christian: Since we were taken over, closed down and occupied Indian Affairs, from the 1970s to the present day, we have had something like 15 administrators, over the past 30 years approximately. The issue is this: What we are battling right now is a governance system that mirrors the federal and provincial government, and that system, as we know, is not that efficient and not that effective. We are looking at other designs of that process so that more responsibility is given to the families, so we are not taking responsibility away.
The more we establish a process where families and individuals are responsible, the more we can actually evolve collectively. The infrastructures we have mirror government, and they are not that effective.
Senator Campbell: The critical word is ``evolve,'' and in fact, what you are being asked to do is put down on paper, set in stone, ``This is what we will do,'' without that process. The former chief said he has documented nine generations, but we know this process goes back a lot longer than that.
I was really surprised when he said that his First Nation were mediators between other First Nations. This is an incredible kind of evolution and thought process. The argument must be that you cannot have it written in stone, that you are in an evolutionary process, that you are coming back from a terrible time and you are trying to re-establish what worked for you for centuries, and INAC is telling you what works for a short term. Is that fair?
Mr. Christian: Yes, that is the issue. Like I said, when we get dictated to from the outside, it never works. As you say, we are evolving our own governance system and not all of it is written down. What I mean by that is we are evolving our own ceremonial processes that give recognition within the community, the songs, the ceremonies that we do. For example, we welcome newborns into our community with a ceremony. It is a ceremonial process where we hold up the family and the grandparents and evolve that, ``This is who you are related to.''
Senator Campbell: These are new songs.
Mr. Christian: These are actually old songs.
Senator Campbell: But there are new songs?
Mr. Christian: There are new songs evolving as well. When you speak of the governance system, it is not just about, it is also about ceremony and being connected to the land. That is beginning to evolve more and more. I mean a lot of the indigenous nations do a first fish ceremony to honour the fish, because they play such a vital role. That is a governance issue. It is not recorded in writing. It might be recorded on DVD, but it comes from the oral history, it is still the oral tradition, and that is really important to us on the West Coast through the long house and what they do there. They have a rich history. Sometimes long house ceremonies go for 24 hours, 26 hours.
Senator Campbell: Like a city council meeting.
Mr. Christian: Exactly.
Senator Campbell: I can tell you that I am a Liberal and these guys are Conservatives but none of our parties can stand tall when it comes to the issue of how aboriginal people have been treated in this country, and I do not care what party you are.
Thank you so much for coming today. I could listen to you and the other chief talk about how things have evolved forever, because it is just fascinating. My biggest regret is that somehow we cannot get that rich tradition, this rich history out into the public. White guys think they invented mediation, and if we can get that out, that would be great.
The Chair: I have one quick question, and it goes back to what Manitoba tried to do. They want to set up an electoral system with an ombudsman and a chief electoral officer. Would you see that in B.C., province-wide? Your nation has 18,000 people throughout the various bands. Would you visualize that operating effectively, or what would you see?
Mr. Christian: Diversity in British Columbia is an issue, because not everybody is on the same page all the time. That is one of the things that we are dealing with right now with an inherent title and rights task force. We are collectively coming together and trying to deal with those, if you will, logistical issues of governance. So I think it may work, but everybody has to get on-side and it has to be an education process. If First Nations speak for themselves, how do communities get engaged in that process? It never works whenever anything is forced upon us from the outside. It comes down to how we evolve a process where communities are involved in that kind of discussion and the evolution of that process. It may work.
Senator Raine: In the Shuswap or Secwepemc Nation, with the 17 communities, when you talk of the nation, do you mean your own community or do you mean the greater Secwepemc community?
Mr. Christian: I mean the nation as a whole, because the term First Nation is a community, we are a nation upon ourselves.
Senator Raine: You say, though, that the communities speak for themselves. In terms of the governance of the Secwepemc Nation, are you happy with how that government is set up? Is that functioning well?
Mr. Christian: The problem with the existing governance system is the Indian Act, because everybody is conditioned to respond and react to Indian Act issues, reserve issues. In terms of the governance in the territory, there are 99 council members and 17 chiefs in our 17 communities. We are starting to evolve a different dialogue. It talks about that issue of governance outside the communities while still having a system where people can decide for themselves and speak for themselves, but collectively we set an agenda. We meet maybe once or twice a year. Again it is a process of arriving at some sort of a protocol or accord amongst ourselves on how we are going to do that. We are in discussions on those things right now. The northern chiefs have a northern tribal council; Chief Mike Archie is a tribal spokesperson. The southern chiefs have a Shuswap Nation Tribal council; I am the spokesperson for the ten communities. We meet and discuss how can we work together, and that is the evolution, but we recognize that each community has their own voice in that process.
Senator Raine: In those meetings is there any discussion of resource revenue sharing? Obviously some communities have more resource opportunities than others. Does the Secwepemc First Nation, all 17 communities, look out for the totality of their lands?
Mr. Christian: Resource and revenue sharing is a critical issue right now. We are very conscious of that when we talk of the proper title. The rights holder is not the elected band council, and the courts have been really clear that that is the Indian Act and that is the reserve system. The title and rights holders are the people as a whole, are the hereditary people or people on the land. That is what we are looking at, how do we begin to look after their interests collectively? That is the discussion that we are having right now, actually, how we are going to do that. It is very difficult because we get sucked back into the reserve system all the time, but that is where we are at this point. It is a struggle, honestly, but we are evolving it.
Senator Raine: I wish you the very best of luck on the journey.
Mr. Christian: The current burning issues that we are looking at in terms of resource and revenue sharing involves the hydroelectric projects in the territory. There are some big things we are looking at right now. We have entered into discussions with the provincial government on a government-to-government relationship, again talking about the governance outside the communities, how this is going to work, and we are in that process right now. We have to lay out that agenda and make it happen. That is what we are doing currently.
Senator Raine: Thank you gain for being here today.
The Chair: I have great faith that British Columbia will be well represented at the AFN with Shawn Atleo. I asked him a question last time he appeared, I said, ``If we were to get rid of the Indian Act as such,'' which many of us believe should be devolved, ``has any thought been given to a transitional program that would allow for the devolution without impacting negatively the First Nations rank and file within the communities?'' He said that they did not have anything right at the moment. You just cannot get up in the morning and say that the game is over. You have got to have a transitional program, do you agree?
Mr. Christian: I agree totally. That is why we need section 35 discussions on how we actually interface and to set, if you will, the foundation for the next hundred years on how we are going to participate in Canada as full and equal people on a legal, political, social and cultural basis. Then we can truly have that dialogue. That is the alternative to the Indian Act, and I think that we are beginning to see that evolution in British Columbia, where you have people like A- in-chut, Shawn Atleo, who is from the Ahousaht. They have a hereditary system and they are working with the elected leaders. That is happening all over the province. That system is starting to evolve more and more because or what is embedded in the hereditary system, and A-in-chut is a hereditary chief. He has a responsibility for land, he has a responsibility in the context of language and laws and all those aspects. Then you have the elected leaders who are responsible for these little pockets of reserves. We are starting to bring that together.
The alternative is section 35 and constitutional reform at that level if we really want to make a difference. If we want a substantive change, we have to be bold about it. Tinkering with the Indian Act will not make it happen. We have seen many amendments to the Indian Act. We have got the regulations here, we have the sections related to Bill C-31 coming before the house, and all we are doing is just tinkering with something that has to change completely.
The Chair: One thing that should be a little encouraging is this committee and how it has been able to work for the last few years in a non-partisan fashion. Senator Campbell is from one party and some of us are from the other party, but we are oblivious to party lines in trying to accomplish what has to be accomplished.
We thank you for coming. If there is anything that you feel that would add that you have second thoughts about, please contact the clerk. We would like to include everything possible to compile a good report and to come forward with recommendations that are useful.
Our next witness, senators, is Joanne Teegee from the Saik'uz First Nation.
Welcome. I am sure you are aware of the study as you were present during the last presentation. It revolves around section 74 elections under the Indian Act. We are prepared to hear your submission, and hopefully you will be able to answer a few questions by the senators.
Joanne Teegee, Saik'uz First Nation, as an individual: Thank you.
I would like to introduce myself to you. I am the eldest grandchild of the late Dr. Mary John Sr., also known as Stoney Creek Woman. I started working for my band as a land claims researcher in the 1990s, and then I started volunteering with the Prince George Urban Aboriginal Strategy to develop their terms of reference. Now I have changed the course of my life because of an injury I received; I had a ruptured brain aneurysm. I am a survivor of the residential school system, a third-generation of survivors. I had a 20 per cent chance of surviving this brain aneurysm, and since surviving the surgery, I have had it in my heart to represent the poor and the unfortunate. I took it upon myself, with recommendations from elders in my community, at the annual general assembly of the Carrier-Sekani tribal council, to represent the residential school survivors.
Since volunteering, I have spent three years on the alternate dispute resolution and coordinated ADR groups on a volunteer basis. As a result, the federal government has seen my transparency and capacity, having proved myself in that responsibility, and they have considered me to coordinate IAP group hearings. Since then I have applied to become a director of my company called Chosen Forerunners Advocates. The mandate is to provide support on a daily basis to ensure that Aboriginals receive justice without prejudice. We also purpose to facilitate restoration and reconciliation, bringing healing to generations of aboriginal peoples.
I am here today representing all the unfortunate Aboriginals who are on the street, all the unfortunate Aboriginals who have lost their children.
Statistics Canada said 60 per cent of members live off reserve, and there is no representation regarding those members at a band council table. I am proposing today to the Senate that at least half of the council members should represent off reserve people, because there is no representation anywhere for them. When we developed the terms of reference for the urban Aboriginal strategy, nothing really developed from that program except for a few projects, but it did give me the desire to advocate for the unfortunate Aboriginals.
Another item is the protocol for band members to be nominated. There should be screening, such as a criminal record check and checking to see if their personal finances are stable, because of incidents like funding freezes when they mismanage funds at the band level. Our band was on a funding freeze for housing and it prevented a lot of people from applying for housing. It is unfortunate that we have to wait until the band is accountable and transparent again when I am sure there is a member who is accountable and transparent who could manage the funds.
Another item was the Indian Act with regard to fiduciary responsibility. It has failed in a number of areas. When I was the researcher for the band, consultation was introduced in 1994 at a convention in Vancouver, and to this day, we have never had consultation. I approached the Carrier-Sekani Tribal Council at the general assembly. When they were practising what the government was delivering, they were failing to consult with their members, too. There is no consultation with the grassroots people at the end, so there is no representation for the grassroots people at a level that is trustworthy. I am talking about release of information.
I am from Saik'uz, and we did not even know about these hearings until I received an email from an advocate in Vancouver. We are wondering why the committee is not holding hearings in Prince George, the central interior, and we would like to recommend that there be meetings held in Prince George so the Carrier-Sekani tribal council members can appear as witnesses.
Those are my major concerns today. I am hoping that the Indian Act will be revised and that one day it will be abolished. I do not know how many generations it has to take. I am just here to stand on the principle that justice be served. I thank you for hearing my concerns today.
The Chair: Ms. Teegee, is Saik'uz near Prince George?
Ms. Teegee: It is about 70 miles from Prince George, southwest. It is eight miles southwest on the Kenny Dam Road. It is right in the middle of B.C., geographically.
The Chair: I do not think you will get any argument about devolving or abolishing the Indian Act. The question I have to you is, are you off reserve or on reserve?
Ms. Teegee: I am off reserve.
The Chair: Do you get a chance to vote in the leadership of your band?
Ms. Teegee: Yes, I do, when I have money in my pocket, because it takes a full tank of gas to go to my reserve and back.
The Chair: Do you have mail-in ballots or do you have to be there to vote?
Ms. Teegee: No, we have mail-in ballots.
The Chair: You do have mail-in ballots, so you could vote by mail right from home?
Ms. Teegee: Yes.
The Chair: You are looking for accountability and transparency. Is this in the election process? You referred to housing and various other things. Do you think that the elections held at your community level are conducted properly and with accountability and transparency?
Ms. Teegee: I believe they are conducted properly, but the screening of those being appointed is where it fails.
The Chair: Would you explain that further?
Ms. Teegee: Pardon me, being nominated, when a member is nominated to be on council or a chief. The chief can be anybody.
The Chair: Off reserve?
Ms. Teegee: Yes, off reserve. Yes, it is the rules regarding being nominated.
The Chair: You made a comment about the fact that you were not notified. I believe the reason you were not notified is that your community does not come under the Indian Act, that you are under a customary code as such. Now, I am not sure about that, but that is the information that we have. What we are really studying, Ms. Teegee, is Indian Act elections.
Had your band been under the section 74 of the Indian Act, you would have been notified, and that is really what we are studying.
Ms. Teegee: I believe we are, because we are developing an election code. That is another issue my chief wanted me to raise, that $12,000 is not enough. We need $50,000 to develop an election code.
The Chair: Is Saik'uz part of the Carrier Sekani Tribal Council?
Ms. Teegee: Yes, it is one of the seven members, I believe.
Senator Raine: I understand that $12,000 is not enough. We heard from a chief earlier who said that when they developed their custom code, it took $40,000. It is tough if there are not the resources to do that.
Why is it that your band would like to go to the custom election code?
Ms. Teegee: It was still up in the air at a recent meeting. It is like what I told you about releasing information. Nobody hears about these meetings until they are over, and then they wonder why they only had ten people show up. You know, it is about releasing information.
Senator Raine: Is your community quite spread out? I mean you are living off the reserve, but how big is your community?
Ms. Teegee: Do you mean who is on the reserve right now?
Senator Raine: Who are members of the band?
Ms. Teegee: How many members? I think it is anywhere from 1,000 or 1,500, somewhere around there. I am just guessing.
Senator Raine: How many would live on the reserve?
Ms. Teegee: Sixty per cent live off reserve, 40 per cent live on reserve.
Senator Raine: Those who live off reserve, are they mostly living in the traditional lands?
Ms. Teegee: Off reserve?
Senator Raine: Yes.
Ms. Teegee: No, in urban areas.
Senator Raine: Like Prince George or Williams Lake?
Ms. Teegee: Yes, Vancouver.
Senator Raine: I could see where it is very difficult to communicate a process and keep it going.
Ms. Teegee: The tribal council had a communications officer. I do not know what happened to that position, but I am hoping to fill in the gap with regard to the release of information.
Senator Raine: Are your council members currently elected for two years?
Ms. Teegee: Yes, they are.
Senator Raine: Would you like to go to longer terms?
Ms. Teegee: No, I would not, because of transparency and accountability. We were wondering about how to practise our responsibility regarding a councillor or a chief who is not transparent or accountable. Their should be a process that will terminate their position if they are unethical.
The Chair: Senator Campbell?
Senator Campbell: I have no questions.
The Chair: Well, thank you very much. I think we should put on the record that advertisements were placed in newspapers in all communities where hearings are to be held: flyers, faxes and e-mails to friendship centres and tribal councils and resource centres, media advisories and news releases given to the radio, Aboriginal mainstream, TV stations.
Maybe this was not adequate. The fact is that we are concerned, because we wanted all people from First Nations to know what we are doing. We have an open mic session where people do not have to come formally. They can just come up later today and tomorrow in Williams Lake and Friday in Vancouver and make presentations. We apologize to you that our advisory did not go out and cast a big enough net to advise all people. We will work on trying to improve that in the future.
We thank you for coming this morning and for your presentation.
Ms. Teegee: Thank you.
Senator Raine: We should mention that we will be hearing people again tomorrow in Williams Lake and if you know of anybody who would have liked to have come, that is not quite as far to drive as Kelowna. We would be more than happy to have people appear tomorrow in Williams Lake.
Ms. Teegee: I think I emailed everybody on my list.
Senator Raine: Great. Thank you very much.
(The committee adjourned.)