Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Aboriginal Peoples
Issue 18 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Wednesday, October 7, 2009
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples met this day at 6:30 p.m. to study the federal government's constitutional, treaty, political and legal responsibilities to First Nations, Inuit and Metis peoples, and other matters generally relating to the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada (topic: issues pertaining to Indian Act elections).
Senator Gerry St. Germain (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good evening. I want to welcome all honourable senators, members of the public, and all viewers across the country who are watching the proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples, either on CPAC or on the web.
I am Senator Gerry St. Germain from British Columbia. I have the honour of chairing this committee. The mandate of this committee is to examine legislation and matters relating to the Aboriginal peoples of Canada generally.
On April1 of this year, the committee decided to launch a study to examine issues related to the Indian Act elections. The committee is looking at concerns about the Indian Act election system, including the two-year term of office for chiefs and council as currently prescribed by the act. We, as a committee, are seeking the views of First Nations leaders, Aboriginal organizations and First Nations people, as well as experts in this area regarding whether, and what, changes should be made to the Indian Act elections regime to provide better governance for First Nations, including strengthening political accountability of the leadership to First Nations citizens.
For our viewing audience, it is important to note that 252Indian bands, roughly 40percent of all Indian bands in Canada, hold elections in accordance with the Indian Act. This study on election processes focuses on those First Nations whose elections are held under the Indian Act. The other Indian bands select their leaders by way of custom or as a result of their self-government agreements.
[Translation]
Just before we hear what our witness has to say about the elections held under the Indian Act, allow me to introduce the members of the committee who are here today.
[English]
On my left is the deputy chair, Senator Nick Sibbeston, from the Northwest Territories; next to Senator Sibbeston is Senator Hubley, from Prince Edward Island. On my right is Senator Bob Peterson, from Saskatchewan; next to Senator Peterson is Senator Carstairs, from Manitoba; next to Senator Carstairs is a recently appointed senator, Senator Carolyn Stewart Olsen, from New Brunswick; and next to her is Senator Nancy Greene Raine, from the great province of British Columbia.
Honourable senators, allow me to introduce our first witness. Ellen Gabriel is the president of Quebec Native Women Inc., a role she has held since October2004. She advocates on behalf of Aboriginal women, and carries their message to provincial and international and national levels.
[Translation]
Ms. Gabriel has travelled within Canada, as well as to Holland and Strasbourg, France, in order to speak to the European Parliament. She has also been to Japan to educate the public about aboriginal culture and identity, and to describe her experience with respect to the Kanesatake crisis.
[English]
We welcome you to our committee and look forward to hearing your views on the elections held under the Indian Act. Your remarks will be followed by questions from senators, if you so agree to respond to them. We ask that your presentation be around 10 or 15 minutes so that we allow adequate time for senators to ask questions.
If you are ready, Ms. Gabriel, you have the floor.
Ellen Gabriel, President, Quebec Native Women Inc.:
[The witness spoke in the Mohawk language.]
Thank you for inviting me here tonight. I am Turtle Clan, from the community of Kanesatake from the People of the Flint, also known as Mohawk. I thank the Creator for allowing me to live another day to be here to present to you, and Mother Earth, as well, for all She provides to us.
I am pleased that this Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples has undertaken the study of issues related to Indian Act elections, but we at QNW believe that these issues are symptomatic of a larger problem regarding band council's governance.
As illustrated in Kahnawake with the 2003 Kahnawake Membership Law, discriminatory membership and custom elections codes have been adopted and enforced illegally, creating rogue band governments that were elected in a fashion that is not reflective of good governance principles. These elections also raise several human rights concerns.
Undeniably, the adoption and enforcement of discriminatory membership and custom election codes specifically targeted women who regained their status in 1985 by denying them membership in defiance of the Indian Act amendments, BillC-31. This situation has led to important violations of fundamental rights, since these women and their children are unable to live on the reserve, to be buried on the reserve and to participate in the democratic process of elections. They are also denied access to band-administered programs and essential services.
BillC-31 amendments, designed to redress the historical discrimination faced by Aboriginal women, were thus not enforced properly by the Canadian federal government. Custom election codes are also problematic, as the choice of band leadership, by custom, may be made unimpeded by the Indian Act and does not necessarily require an election.
In Aboriginal history and culture, elections customs are nonexistent as elections per se represent a colonial process. However, to further the transparency and openness of such a process, QNW believes that minimum standards should be enacted. At the least, a so-called custom election system should not be used as a pretext to deprive reinstated women of their right to vote.
While the present study conducted by the standing committee may resolve self-government problems in a limited fashion, it does not address issues such as band membership and Aboriginal citizenship. These issues are nonetheless crucial to provide for better governance and political accountability in Aboriginal communities.
Good governance principles include openness, transparency, and accountability to democratic institutions. The Indian Act election system should be revised in an inclusive manner rather than an exclusive manner, allowing all band members who so desire to participate in the affairs of the band through the democratic process of elections.
Good governance principles include fairness and equity in dealing with citizens. Indian and Northern Affairs Canada should be held accountable for the way in which discriminatory membership and custom election codes were enforced and adopted by band councils in defiance of the Indian Act amendments.
Good governance principles include respect for the rule of law: INAC should enforce and be accountable to the rule of law. INAC should be held accountable for allowing the creation of rogue band counsel governments and for further supporting them. INAC should practice good governance by not allowing and rewarding these enclaves where human rights are not respected.
The Government of Canada should reconsider its stance and endorse the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples so that many human rights violations regarding gender discrimination can be resolved.
The respect of the rule of law includes a state respecting not only its own domestic law but also international law. Quebec Native Women therefore want to emphasize article4 of the UN declaration:
Indigenous peoples, 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.
We also recommend that cabinet revoke its 2003 Order-in-Council that supports the recent custom election code of the Mohawk Council of Kahnawake as the election code was based on an illegal membership code that has not been ratified by the community. To this day, the community of Kahnawake does not have a ratified membership code. The essence of human rights is dignity. Without it, no state can truthfully say that they promote and protect democracy and all that it stands for.
Senator Peterson: Thank you for your presentation.
In the documentation we have under custom elections, a number of criteria must be met before a band can proceed with this type of election. Are you implying or stating that INAC failed miserably in ensuring that these criteria were followed?
Ms. Gabriel: Yes, and they continue to fail.
Senator Peterson: You also mentioned the election in your band of a rogue government by discriminatory membership. Was this done unilaterally?
Ms. Gabriel: As far as I know, and based on what I have been told by community members, there was never ratification or even an informed consultation with the community regarding this election code in which this discrimination continues to be practiced by the Mohawk Council of Kahnawake. Many inconsistencies remain and the band did not even have to provide proof that they consulted their community when they put this election code in place.
Senator Carstairs: Thank you very much for your presentation and welcome to this Senate committee. I have long been an admirer of yours, and the work you have done.
However, what we need to hear tonight, Ms. Gabriel, are specific examples of the kinds of discrimination that are being perpetrated against women. Can you put specific examples on the record?
Ms. Gabriel: Sure: I was told I had six minutes, so I was surprised I had 10 or 15 minutes. Otherwise, my explanation might have been longer.
I do not know if you are familiar with Mary Two-Axe Earley. She was one of the pioneers of the Aboriginal women's movement in Canada. In one presentation, she jokingly said that a pet, an animal such as a dog, can be buried in Kahnawake but she cannot be.
INAC transfers money to councils like Kahnawake. It does the same for other councils across Canada for all members. For Kahnawake, the federal government has at least 2,700 people's names on their list, in addition to the existing membership list that Kahnawake has.
Those 2,700 people do not receive services. They are not allowed to have membership. They have status from the federal government but they are not allowed to have education. There are people who have defied the Kahnawake membership code and the right to live there. Many cannot live there because they have a non-Native spouse but some of them have done so anyway, at the risk of their own lives. They have had their water cut and they have been threatened, but they have remained.
I know of an occasion where a woman inherited land from her parents and, because her non-Native husband is still alive, she is not allowed to own this land because of this so-called membership code, which is illegal.
These instances of discrimination are practiced by certain rogue band council governments. This kind of behaviour is condoned knowingly by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Senator Carstairs: I will reiterate: You have a situation in which 2,700 people are on INAC's list of recognized, status Aboriginal people.
Ms. Gabriel: In addition to the others.
Senator Carstairs: Yes, but there are an additional 2,700 for whom the band council receives monies and for whom that band council is therefore supposed to pay for health care, education, housing, services and all the other things they provide, and those people do not receive those services.
Ms. Gabriel: They are refused services because they are not on the membership list. They have been struggling with the membership for years. A council of elders ruled discriminatorily and inconsistently, and they are trying to resolve their membership.
INAC provides four different kinds of criteria for bands to create their membership codes. The one that has been chosen by Kahnawake has to do with blood quantum. There are other choices where one parent is Aboriginal, or two parents. The choices are in our brief that we submitted to the committee.
I emphasize that Kahnawake is not alone in this practice. Other communities across Canada are in the same situation. Legislation was passed to end this discrimination, as I mentioned in my opening statement. We have created a class system and, if we continue to follow the INAC criteria, Clatworthy and Smith stated that in 50 years' time, some bands will lose their membership. The bands will have people but they will not be status Indians.
That situation concerns me. Our people are enforcing a colonized policy, and it is not acceptable. I am a longhouse person. I do not vote in my community's elections, but I have family that do. In our ways, we can adopt you if we wanted to. It is more inclusive. The way this is made up, with membership codes and reinstating people, because we have been oppressed for so long we have become discriminatory against one another.
The sad part is that we are losing good people, such as women who are not allowed to live in their communities. Even after their husbands die or they divorce, they are vulnerable in some of the urban areas. As you know, we have Stolen Sisters and the high rates of violence against Aboriginal women. We need to assure that their dignity and human rights are guaranteed by the nation that they come from.
This process that INAC supports and condones exists today in Canada and it should not; it should not be accepted by anybody.
Senator Carstairs: Thank you. I will pass but I would like to go on a second round.
Senator Hubley: Welcome, Ms. Gabriel.
I want to follow along on the subject of discrimination. I believe you said that discrimination enters into the elections, as well; women are discriminated against during elections. Can you explain that discrimination to me?
Ms. Gabriel: In this particular case, women, or people who do not live in the community are not allowed to vote. This discrimination goes against Canadian jurisprudence, which allows people who are non-residents of a community to vote. It is practiced discrimination.
We can have a person who is in favour with a band council and is living somewhere else — maybe the person maintains a house in the community but is living in an urban centre — who is allowed to vote. However, these women, because they are considered "BillC-31s,'' are not allowed to vote unless they are part of the membership.
It goes to the discriminatory practice of having to be a resident. In fact, one of the criteria they have created is that someone can run for council only if that person has been living in the community for six months. We should be equal no matter where we live. We should not be restricted by the fact that there are no houses available. One of the weaknesses of BillC-31 is that it did not accommodate the increase in membership the communities would have after reinstatement, and the land that would be needed to accommodate the new members.
When they have been oppressed as long as we have been, they begin to be choosey about who is allowed to stay and who is told to leave. That is basically a nepotistic way of enforcing their kind of democracy. For people who want to vote and be part of the decision-making processes of the communities that they were born in, it is not acceptable.
Some of these women are not even allowed to be buried in their communities. The former Chief Joe Norton was talking to some women and he said, «You can come back once your husband dies, or you can kill him,» he said jokingly. That comment is insulting to women who love their husbands and who have children that are also being discriminated against because their father is White.
Senator Hubley: We are looking at electoral practices in Aboriginal and First Nations communities. Do you have a comment on the term of office? We have looked at extending it from a two-year term to maybe a four-year term. Do you see advantages or disadvantages to that change?
Ms. Gabriel: I see advantages to a four-year term. My post as president is a two-year term, and within the scope of two years, especially for someone new to a job, they are learning the ropes: how government works and the whole process. Four-year terms are good to establish strong leadership, but given the fact that we have these kinds of discriminations occurring, I would vote for the two-year term at this point until these problems are fixed.
Senator Hubley: You used the term «oppression» several times in your presentation. If you had to point your finger at any part of government that may be responsible for that oppression, how would you respond?
Ms. Gabriel: I am not sure I understand your question.
Senator Hubley: I am asking whether you view the Indian Act as a positive form to have in place for our First Nations. Is the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, INAC, fulfilling its role as you see it?
Ms. Gabriel: No, I do not see the Indian Act as a positive thing for us, nor do I see the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs fulfilling its role at all.
The manner in which they negotiate or deal with us is crazy-making. It is difficult to say in the amount of time we have. However, we have an Indian Act band council. It is not even a government. It receives its authority from the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The council cannot do anything, such as ratify membership codes, without the stamp of approval from the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. We lack funds for education. The Auditor General herself has stated that it would take 28years for Aboriginal children and youth to catch up to the rest of Canadian society, because over 60percent of the budget goes to the bureaucracy of the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, and we are lucky to have anything for our communities. We have to question the government for continually undermining the declaration, and the money they have spent on undermining the declaration. The Indian Act was made specifically to target the role of women: our authority and our value within our own communities, enhanced by the residential schools so that we have dysfunctional families. We have high rates of suicide. The Indian Act specifically targeted the women because the government knew the women had such great authority; women passed on language and moral values to the children. The Indian Act was designed to support the male line. The government knew specifically how to destroy the health and well-being of a nation.
Here we are in 2009 and we are still experiencing discrimination. It is unacceptable. I am a longhouse person. As I said, I do not vote in my band council elections because we had a government, and still have a government, that existed before Europeans arrived here. It was made illegal in the 1920s and it is still illegal. The government refuses to deal with traditional people's governments. The government is violating section35 of the Constitution that talks about inherent rights. They should not be only about fishing or hunting. Inherent rights extend to more than those two small areas.
We have poor governance. We have a system that is designed to accept corruption, and this corruption is all condoned by the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs. In the meantime, they continue to take away our land. They continue to develop our land in a process that is unfair to us. Land claims, I think, is another area where we can look at where people are also denied their land rights, according to membership codes. I would love to have a great debate with all these people who are trying continually to oppress our rights. We are the First Peoples of this land. We did not come over on the Bering Strait. We are indigenous to these lands. Without the medicines, without access to our lands and resources, we are denied our rights, our inheritance and our identity. Our identity is devalued. There is nothing good in the Indian Act, except that for now that is all we know. The government does not respect the treaties. It continually says, that treaty was made with Britain. Is Canada not a Commonwealth country? Did the Queen not have to sign off and accept Canada when it changed its Constitution? Does Canada not still have the Governor General?
There are all kinds of inconsistencies in the arguments that are given to us when we try to defend our rights. The only way that the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs will take notice or sit with us is if our people go out and make blockades. What kind of a government is that, where they force us into a corner? We do not like blockades. No one wants to sit out there in the cold and rain, and to be harassed by the rest of the Canadian public, but this is what the government forces us to do. It is time that the Canadian public and Parliament took a good look at the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs — how they treat us and how they spend our money because that money is taken from our royalties. In 1927, when they made the Iroquois Confederacy illegal, they also took away the trust fund.
The Chair: We have heard as a committee from other people with concerns, some of which you voiced this evening. As a committee, we have ventured out and tried to focus on small steps like specific claims, economic development and implementation of modern-day treaties. We have concentrated on these steps.
Is there anything we can say in our recommendations that will assist your cause? I do not think we will solve the BillC-31 scenario. In 1985, that bill was brought forward. You are saying that some of these First Nations will not accept these women in spite of the fact that the legislation was passed.
It is an inherent right for the band to establish its own band membership. It becomes complex. You know that we are studying the two-year term and possibly common day elections, so that there is not a continual turnover in various areas where there are tribal councils or leadership groups, such as in Manitoba and in other places. We are studying the two-year term so they can have some continuity. As well, there is the recall process.
Can you recommend anything to us that you think will help you to work towards accomplishing some of the aims and challenges that you are trying to overcome?
Ms. Gabriel: One of the first things that comes to mind is to allow those people that these bands receive money for to have the right to vote. That change is a no-brainer. It is simple.
We talked about the rule of law. The government constantly uses that argument against us. The rule of law has to be followed, yet the government does not follow it. They do not enforce this amendment that can provide equality for indigenous women and their children in Canada.
Another point is that some recommendations we made were in accordance with what good governance is. Maybe the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development needs to learn what good governance is, as well. There is no openness, transparency or accountability. The department is not a democratic institution.
You are looking at the terms of office. As I said, if the situation was ideal, I would say four years is probably the best way for a leader to get their feet wet and to learn about the system. However, at this time, considering the actions condoned by INAC, I cannot recommend four-year terms.
There needs to be accountability of band councils that discriminate. There are cases in our brief. We cite the Sagamok Band that also refuses to implement BillC-31 or section6 of the Indian Act.
I want to see membership codes that are more culturally relevant and that add a gender-based analysis. If any recommendation is possible for this committee to make, it would be to have a gender-based analysis on this issue.
We are talking about elections of people. We are forced into these kinds of systems. We have no choice. There is no choice. As I said, there are councils that have no authority. They have authority to say who receives water and education, but they do not have much authority unless INAC says they have the authority.
I cited the declaration about self-determination. This issue should be about self-determination. It should be about dignity of human rights. Maybe the issue is beyond the scope of this committee, but I think that is something you should consider.
As a longhouse person, I do not mind working with my brothers and sisters who embrace the band council system if they want to embrace this colonial structure. I want the opportunity also to have the right for my government to be recognized; to have the right to choose, and not to have this government forced down my throat.
I do not think these band councils are democratic. I think the issue is all about control. Band councils were created basically to replace the Indian agent. It is sad that in one of the most developed countries in the world, we are still under the thumb of one man — whoever that may be. We had one exception with a female Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs.
The fact that our culture, our way and our values are not even considered in this whole process must be revised. The whole system must be revised, which I think is beyond the scope of this committee.
The Chair: There is certainly no area that we are prohibited from looking at with regard to Aboriginal issues. However, whether we can effect the necessary change is questionable. We recommend by way of reports to the government. Some of us agree with you that the Indian Act is archaic. It does not serve the constituency the way it should.
Senator Sibbeston: Ms. Gabriel, as I listen to you, I cannot help but feel a lot of empathy and concern for you. I come from the Northwest Territories. It does not have all these problems that you talk about tonight.
Generally, there is no exclusion of Aboriginal people in the community. People are still together and we do not have reserves in the North. We do not have people living completely by themselves. There is more give-and-take. More and more Aboriginal people are living with non-Native people. It is accepted.
In the North, if an Aboriginal person has a relationship with a White person, the offspring is a Metis. I think that experience is the same in Western Canada too. Metis people are descended from non-Native and Native people. The Metis have become a group of people who have a somewhat different history from the First Nations.
As I listen to you, I find it perplexing. Native people want to be known as sharing, back-to-basics, close-to-nature and kind to their kin. What you express is not the case. You are describing a vicious exclusion of people simply for the fact that they marry a White person. Rigid rules have developed.
Our committee is dealing with how to improve the First Nations situation with respect to elections — not only terms — but the whole election process. I am sure our reports will deal with how we can improve the election process. The idea of an entity — a body — arm's length from government that deals with elections amongst First Nations is one recommendation we will likely make.
Considering all the problems you have — you are excluded from the reserve and from all programs — I suppose the study does not address anywhere near the extent of your problems.
Do you think the work we do and a recommendation that we might make, particularly regarding an entity dealing with elections, would help in any way? Will you be helped if we recommend and suggest changes like that?
Ms. Gabriel: It is possible that it will help some people. There will have to be mechanisms to enforce these kinds of equality — a process put in place where people understand what democracy is.
I appreciate your comments about indigenous people from your area. You compare our particular area, in essence, as being mean-spirited. I have put words in your mouth, but that is essentially what it is. If we look at the root causes, they come down to being told we are a bunch of savages and we are stupid. People take on the colonized version of who we should be.
I think that many times the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs has contributed to the problems, and even the violence, that we see in the communities. We always have hanging over our heads this kind of economic terrorism practised by Indian and Northern Affairs Canada in that they say: Here is your policy, here is your program, take it or leave it; if you do not take it, you will not have this amount of money for your band.
I think you need to examine also how much INAC contributes to this specific problem, as we said in our brief. We had legislation that was supposed to end discrimination, yet it is not enforced. In fact, discrimination is rewarded. I think you need to look, as well, at INAC and how the department contributes to this problem.
It will not be enough to fix the election codes or to say the term is four years. As long as inequalities exist and as long as we look at people who have been oppressed for so long and all of a sudden have the opportunity — or what looks like an opportunity — to be self-determining, they will take what they can and ignore their traditions and customs. This issue should be about our citizenship and what citizens' obligations are to their nation, not only about carrying a card that says, I do not have to pay taxes when I go shopping. This issue should be about our indigenous identity.
These customs that INAC talks about are customs according to INAC, not according to indigenous people's customs. That area is one that needs to be examined.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Ms. Gabriel, thank you for appearing here. Please bear with me as I am new to the committee. I wanted a point of clarification; I find this area a little confusing.
You said the band is paid for the people that they do not accept as members.
Ms. Gabriel: It happens right across Canada, yes. There are exceptions. There are band councils that will provide services for members living off reserve or for people who are reinstated because of BillC-31.
Senator Stewart Olsen: The money goes to the band and the band then refuses to provide the services for these people because the band does not accept them as members? Is that the gist?
Ms. Gabriel: What evolved from BillC-31 was that INAC gave the band councils the authority to give membership.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Yes.
Ms. Gabriel: INAC failed to enforce that legislation, which they are obliged to do.
Senator Stewart Olsen: So that situation is happening, is it?
Ms. Gabriel: Yes, it is happening.
Senator Stewart Olsen: The government pays the money to the band; the band then refuses to provide the appropriate services because —
Ms. Gabriel: Because of their membership codes.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Yes; can we recommend something like, if the band does not recognize the membership, then we should not pay that money for those people?
Ms. Gabriel: I think there should be consequences. I do not think that a whole community should be penalized. Specific band councils should be penalized for the discrimination they practice.
Senator Stewart Olsen: I agree, but I am trying to figure out some way of leveraging the recommendation to give power to people who are disenfranchised in this way.
Ms. Gabriel: As recently as last year, section67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act was repealed and we are now looking at human rights being applied to reserves. I can imagine a swarm of human rights complaints emerging because of this issue.
At the end of the day, who will be the culprit behind it? It is not only the band councils, because they are under the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The Department of Indian and Northern Affairs is the culprit that has created this problem.
I think the issue will be much bigger, unless this problem of non-residents, who are denied membership even from bands that they were born into, is rectified and that the implementation of section6 of the Indian Act be respected by all bands.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Thank you for clarifying that issue.
Senator Raine: Thank you very much, Ms. Gabriel, for being here. I have a lot of questions, but I will try to ask only a few of them.
You said that one result of BillC-31 was that INAC gave bands the authority to have their own membership codes.
Ms. Gabriel: Yes.
Senator Raine: Prior to BillC-31, was the membership of a band determined by INAC?
Ms. Gabriel: INAC held the list of each band member and the status of members. They still do.
Senator Raine: A status member and a band membership are different now?
Ms. Gabriel: Yes; they can have status, but not membership to the band.
Senator Raine: When a band claims a status Indian as part of their band, the funding flows from INAC on a per capita basis, based on that list. Is that correct?
Ms. Gabriel: Yes.
Senator Raine: However, they do not need to have band membership that grants them voting privileges. In other words, the band is receives revenue from INAC, but the person who is affected does not have any rights as a band member?
Ms. Gabriel: Not unless they have membership.
Senator Raine: Yes; that situation is disturbing.
We have been talking specifically about election terms. It is interesting because there is a thought that, by moving to four years under the Indian Act, that change would then give the bands that were having trouble getting themselves in a position to have their own code, a chance to do so. The bands were not able to achieve that situation because the terms were too short.
Now what I am hearing is that maybe it is not such a good idea to have their own code. However, in reality, bands cannot have a code that does not have any relationship to human rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, etcetera. Therefore, these codes —
Ms. Gabriel: You can under the Indian Act. The Indian Act has nothing to do with human rights.
Senator Raine: Are the Kahnawake under the Indian Act?
Ms. Gabriel: They say they are not, but I think they are in some kind of a land management agreement with INAC. Kahnawake is essentially an Indian Act band council.
Senator Raine: Does the band have their elections every two years?
Ms. Gabriel: Yes; they had one this year. In fact, one young man was elected, and then it was found out that he did not have six months' residency and so they kicked him off the council. The inconsistency is that there is no ratified membership code. I do not think there is even a ratified election code. That situation allows the band councils to claim authority to make decisions without the consent of their band members.
Another problem throughout a lot of communities is that only one-quarter of the people might vote.
Senator Raine: One interesting point brought out in British Columbia was the confusion over the word «custom code.» In a sense, I think the code is custom-made for the band's situation or their desires, which obviously should be supported by the majority of the members. However, there are other kinds of codes, which mean «the way it was done in the past» customs. You said several times you are a longhouse. Can you explain how the government worked in the band under a longhouse?
Ms. Gabriel: With the longhouse, it is the women who have title to the chiefs. Therefore, they can select the chiefs and they can depose the chiefs, but it is not a hierarchy. In fact, the chiefs are more or less the spokespersons for the nation that they represent. There are Mohawk chiefs who do not necessarily live in my community, but they are my chiefs, whereas, with the band council system, chiefs have to live in the community.
The women have an equal part in the decision-making process and our form of government follows a clan system. I am Turtle Clan. The Turtle Clan, men and women, would come together and make a decision. Members more or less agree to disagree. They cannot always have 100-per-cent agreement, but these kinds of sessions take place in the open. Everyone is given the opportunity to speak.
Our leadership lasts for many years. Sometimes a person can be selected as chief and even clan mother for their whole life, until they die, whereas with band council the term is only two years. One of the weaknesses of this system is that it does not allow that person the ability or opportunity to understand. It is also based on, as one of the senators talked about, equilibrium, balance, and respect for the environment because it nourishes them. However, the band council system is not all about that understanding. Band councils will support mining, forestry or non-sustainable development that is not environmentally friendly. As traditional people, we cannot do that. We think about seven generations ahead.
One of my elders told me recently that men think about what is happening today, what is in front of us, but women think about the future and what is coming. In essence, that thinking is what traditional forms of government are about. They are about true democracy. The United States took its example from the Iroquois confederacy because they saw that it was a true democracy, but they took our voice away.
I do not hold anything against anyone who is a band councillor; there are some wonderful people in band councils. However, my choice is that my traditional government of the Iroquois confederacy be respected and taken seriously. When in Tom Siddon was the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in 1990, he told us, the Government of Canada will never sit down with the Iroquois confederacy; we will never recognize your authority. This statement was made by a minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Senator Peterson: How long has the leadership in Kahnawake been in office?
Ms. Gabriel: They held elections in July.
Senator Peterson: They were elected by the citizens that can vote?
Ms. Gabriel: They were elected by those who are on the membership list and who are residents of Kahnawake.
Senator Peterson: Do they all feel the same as the leadership, namely that this situation is okay? If they vote them in, they must support their views, which I find strange. If it is so serious that you cannot vote in people of like mind, then there would be no fairness in voting.
Ms. Gabriel: I am not sure I follow you exactly, but the situation is always complicated with indigenous people. It is never easy; our chair can probably attest to that point. One thing that people have a misconception about is that this system is imposed upon us, whether we like it or not. People will volunteer to be part of the band council process although they do not like tradition and they do not believe tradition has a place in our society. For me, that view is fine. The society is a democratic one. They have the right to think that. However, I should also have my right.
There is usually poor turnout for elections. Kahnawake has a membership of maybe 7,000 people. Out of that 7,000, maybe 1,400 voted. The turnout was poor. No matter where they come from, everyone has great ideas and say that they will make changes and do something for their communities. However, once they are elected, they see that their hands are tied by the restrictions and criteria that INAC places on them. They have to go with the flow. The system is designed to assimilate us and to continue oppressing us and to undermine our true inherent rights to self- determination.
Yes, people vote, but I do not think turnout is high enough to justify the existence of this kind of system, at least for the Mohawk nation. I will talk about the Mohawk nation; that is where I am from. For others, this situation is something they embrace. In this particular instance, people who want to vote are denied a vote because they are not in the membership. These are people, who, if they were not married to non-Native men, would qualify as far as blood quantum goes. In fact, the restriction goes even further. They must have Mohawk blood. Even if they married an Anishinabe man, their children are not full-blooded Mohawk. This is how colonized we have become and this is how far we have come away from our traditions.
The Chair: Ms. Gabriel, your presentation and your answers were enlightening. I have sat on this committee for 15 years, so I do not think there are any surprises. I know there is a real breadth of experience with the senators here in dealing with First Nations issues.
We appreciate you taking the time to make your presentation. Hopefully, we can use some of your presentation in the recommendations. The question of INAC and band membership is something that this committee will have the courage and foresight to look into seriously in the future.
We thank you for coming here tonight. We look forward to working with you in the future. If you can think of anything later that you want to contribute to this particular study, contact the clerk of the committee and we will take it into consideration.
Ms. Gabriel: You are very welcome. I appreciate the opportunity to present this evening. Thank you all very much for your questions as well.
The Chair: I have interesting news on behalf of this committee. One of the staff who works for one of our senators attended a conference in Toronto entitled Engaging and Negotiating with Aboriginal Communities. The opening speaker stood up and said: There is one committee that is doing good work in Ottawa, and it is the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples.
I think this comment is a tribute to all the senators at this table. We look forward to good news like that in the future.
We have with us tonight one of the new senators who was recently appointed, Senator Dennis Patterson from Nunavut. We welcome you to the committee, senator.
We will now hear from our second witness, Chief Gilbert Whiteduck of the Kitigan Zibi Band Council.
Chief Whiteduck, we look forward to your comments. As you can see, senators have many questions so if you can keep your presentation to 10 minutes or so, it will be appreciated.
Gilbert Whiteduck, Chief, Kitigan Zibi Band Council: Good evening, Chair St. Germain, senators and participants. I am honoured to have the opportunity this evening to present. I welcome you on unsurrendered, unceded, unconquered Algonquin territory. For us, Ottawa is the heart of our traditional territory.
The Kitigan Zibi community that I represent was created in 1853. We are a pre-Confederation First Nation community. We are the largest Algonquin community, with 2,735 community members, approximately 1,500 who live on reserve, and 1,235who live off.
I will not subject you to a history lesson, but it is vital to understand the roots to the present dysfunctional system of governance imposed on First Nations by Ottawa.
Obviously, we were here first and our systems of governance worked. In 1876, the first Indian Act began the systematic eradication of our culture and modes of governance.
The agenda was to civilize and assimilate. The expectation was that forcing municipal governance on us, the band council system, would lead rapidly to enfranchising entire reserves, turning them into municipalities.
The band council election rules that we have today echo this failed agenda. Now this committee is interested in looking at this situation. To us — duly elected chiefs and our constituents — this is like Groundhog Day, over and over again.
What has changed, however, is twofold. First is the inclusion of off-reserve band members on our community voting list, which came from the Corbiere decision.
Second is escalating off-reserve demand for limited on-reserve programs, services and budgets.
A comment was made earlier in regard to funding made available to First Nations on a per capita basis. This is not the case. We have never received funding on a per capita basis. Funding is by program. A number of formulas are used to determine the level of funding. We do not receive funding for off-reserve community members except for post- secondary education. We do not receive any funding for anything; thus, we have the challenge of providing programs.
Under the BNA Act there are two constitutional orders of government — federal and provincial. Municipal councils and band councils are not mentioned at all, nor is Aboriginal self-government.
Many consider the 1995 Inherent Right of Self-Government Policy, which remains in effect under the Conservative government, the ultimate answer to empowering accountable First Nations governments. Yet this policy to us is nonsense. When you ask whether the rules need to be overhauled, yes, they do. My own humble contribution is to inform you nevertheless of the complexities that necessitate sober, careful thought. There is a widespread perception — and I may have heard it, having watched CPAC and this committee here — among Canadians in general that Indian bands and Indian chiefs are corrupt or just plain incompetent.
We have our problems, but they are not endemic, and government departments have never been good role models.
I will be direct. If your starting point in this project is ideology, hyperbole or rumour, any recommendations you bring forward will have a profoundly counterproductive effect.
I will quote from a website of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, which stated:
Brazeau is calling for a dismantling of the Indian reserve system in Canada, the abolition of the Indian Act and the reconstitution of Canada's traditional Aboriginal nations.
`The reserve system as we know it is broken and needs to be replaced,' says Mr. Brazeau. `Billions of dollars are poured every year into that system, and what do we have to show for it? Reserves that are scandals, that's what.'
Brazeau has written opinion pieces for newspapers, appeared on television and radio shows, and travelled the country telling people that if anyone is serious about solving the problems on Canada's reserves, they need to `get rid of a lot of chiefs.'
It is necessary to maintain perspective and take the time needed to do this project fairly and without creating another generation of electoral dissatisfaction.
In a century and a half, every one of Parliament's attempts to reform Indian government has been a gross failure, we believe. Therefore, do not approach this issue lightly and especially do not think there is a simple solution, especially one based on ideology.
I also suggest that the court-ordered need to consult means that Parliament cannot simply enact changes without real consultation. This consultation will take time and, if done right, there will be lots of cooperation.
The Corbiere decision has led to the inclusion of off-reserve band members in our local elections. I will be prepared to answer questions on that issue later.
Parliament, though, needs to be aware of the challenging results that this decision has brought about.
Band electoral reforms must confront these practical problems squarely. For lack of other terms, let us say that Corbiere has created two practical spinoffs — a competition for finite and insufficient resources, and a severe kind of breakdown of what appears to be fair.
Increasingly, off-reserve band members are calling for a share of the on-reserve funding pie. This pie is finite. It is calculated using formulas that are imposed on us from INAC and other federal departments. For the most part, reserve residents other than registered Indians are not factored in so that this pie is undersized to begin with.
Now we have off-reserve band members involved in band elections. Again, they feel entitled to a slice of the pie. Imagine the tension, the splitting of communities and families that this situation causes.
In the early 1960s, the Pearson Liberal government rewrote history on federal financial responsibility for Indians. Every subsequent government, regardless of the party in power, has stuck to this policy.
First, Ottawa recognizes no financial obligation for the funding of programs and services to Registered Indians anywhere, on or off reserves.
As a matter of fact, Ottawa disputes in the courts any suggestions of treaty, fiduciary or other financial obligation. Former INAC Minister Jean Chrétien famously explained that Canada provides a minimum of funding "on humanitarian grounds'' because the provinces refuse their services on reserves. We are like fiscal footballs in a constant state of play.
The consequences of this cost avoidance do concern this committee. First, it is unlikely from a community perspective that Ottawa will increase on-reserve funding enough to make a difference in the poverty as long as this policy of denial persists. Second, Ottawa maintains a clear policy of not significantly investing in off-reserve Aboriginal programs.
Please be aware that electoral reform must go hand in hand with additional program funding.
In a letter that the Prime Minister wrote to the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples in 2006, the Prime Minister stated:
A Conservative government will acknowledge its jurisdiction for basic programs and services to "Indians and Lands Reserved for Indians.'' Legislation will be enacted in the main program areas. Ottawa will become responsible for results, ending four decades of service gaps and offloading costs onto the provinces. Legislation will provide a proper basis for accountability, a departmental and First Nations levels. The existing financial transfer agreements will be replaced with ones that work.
I say, all right, let us do it. Let us get on with it. Prime Minister Harper has obviously figured out that the solution is taking responsibility, not shirking responsibility.
In conclusion, we can discuss the three-year mandate and a number of other things, which I hope we will do, but I want to put forward some of these recommendations.
Think hard on all the potential benefits of the progressive breakdown of the on-reserve programs and service funding. It is hard to imagine how the breakdown of that funding could further the goals of better services or accountability.
It is fundamentally necessary for federal departments to identify funding that is meant for on-reserve use and off- reserve use. Otherwise, an escalating demand for on-reserve program funding will cause all sorts of program under- performance and raise serious questions about appropriate use.
My humble advice is to resist the temptation to play God, and to approach the issue in a simplistic way. This committee is not the first to contemplate these things and I believe this committee will not be the last.
Thank you for this opportunity, and I look forward to an interesting discussion.
Migwech.
Senator Peterson: Thank you for your presentation. Does your group have a signed treaty?
Mr. Whiteduck: No, we do not.
Senator Peterson: If you do not have one, are you part of a group that had a signed treaty?
Mr. Whiteduck: No, we are unceded and unsurrendered. Like many communities in B.C., we do not have a treaty. To be under a treaty, we would have to be under the comprehensive land claims, which would lead to the extinguishment of our rights. We are not prepared to go under the present federal regulations to extinguish our rights in order to access a treaty.
Senator Peterson: You are on your own, then.
Mr. Whiteduck: We are part of a nation. We are one of ten Algonquin communities that comprise the Anishinabeg Nation. We participate in a tribal council along with six other communities. We do work together.
Other than that, we are on our own at the community level.
Senator Hubley: Welcome this evening, Chief Whiteduck.
We take a lot of notes on things that are wrong and things that are not going right, and we try hard to be respectful because we want to do that, as well.
I want you to share with me, especially, the type of government that you see for your band. Is there anything in my knowledge of small governments that resembles what you want?
Mr. Whiteduck: First, we are under the Indian Act right now and will be for a while. We accept that. We will be under the act while we work to re-establish our own forms of governance.
In the meantime, there are things in the Indian Act that need to be fixed to ensure that happens.
I have been involved in politics as a band councillor since the 1970s and I have done a number of things. I was elected chief a year ago. In our community, the mandate is two years, which is short. Even though one is familiar with the files, it takes a while on critical files. We are looking at extending that mandate and that extension would help.
In our community, we allow everyone over the age of 18 to vote in our band elections, no matter where they live in the world. As long as we have an address, they can send their mail-in ballot. Those people need to understand, however, that we do not receive resources for them. If their child needs special education in Tokyo, we cannot send a cheque to them. We can only deal with what is on reserve. They are allowed to be, and do become, involved in local decision-making and who will be chief and council.
That practice brings its own dynamics because, unless they are in regular contact with the community, debates such as putting up one or two stop signs do not have the same impact on those people living far away. That is why the Corbiere decision brings its own dynamics around that practice.
However, in our community we allow everyone to vote. The approach we have taken in our community is that all information at the community level — program agreements from INAC, funding expenditures, audit reports, etcetera — belong to the community. Any community member can come in at any time and ask to be shown an agreement, the minutes of the meeting or an audit report. You may not agree but they are entitled to do so. We believe in that kind of transparency.
Our challenge has been with the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs trying to access resources to improve on that kind of accountability and put in the right kind of mechanisms. Knowing that many of our members reside elsewhere, we can use our website. On the day we signed our audit report this year, it was on our website within an hour for Canadians and community members to see. I believe we are one of the few communities to have done so. We have nothing to hide. As a matter of fact, we will demonstrate that there is a shortfall and we will show where the problems are.
Beyond that, a while back, when the Accountability Act was discussed, there were chiefs who were concerned that the Auditor General may come to the community to look at what is happening. Our answer to that concern was: Bring her in; she will see things that are not working well; we and Canadians will learn where the shortfall is. We all win; it is win-win.
We have nothing to hide. Why would we? That is transparency and accountability. By the way, we do not get that accountability from INAC. Accountability from INAC towards First Nations is nonexistent. That lack is so frustrating. Here we are, trying to make important steps to work in sync on transparency and accountability, and they are not doing it.
People like me who have been around a while become exasperated. Will it take a roadblock? At the end of the day, what does it take? More papers: We have written tons of them. We need concrete things. Communities like ours are prepared to undertake significant, visionary and creative things and we are told to wait, or we see in the media the criticism launched against us as a leadership. It is upsetting.
Senator Hubley: How long have you been the chief, Chief Whiteduck? I believe the six councillors represent different communities, or are they all from Kitigan Zibi?
Mr. Whiteduck: They are all from Kitigan Zibi. I have been chief for 14 months. The band council is made up of three women and three men, both young and old, so we have that balance. That is a community democratic process that people decide. We had many members who ran for office equally and that is fine.
Senator Hubley: You are in 18 months of a 24-month term. Is that correct?
Mr. Whiteduck: Yes.
Senator Hubley: What about your councillors?
Mr. Whiteduck: The same thing applies to them.
Senator Hubley: They have two years as well?
Mr. Whiteduck: Yes; In the next election, should we decide not to run or run and not be elected, we could have a whole new body that must start all over again. That is why the concept of extending to at least a three-year mandate makes total sense.
The other thing I suggest is the idea of the First Nations Chief Electoral Officer. That officer would ensure someone to overlook what occurs across Canada. The position could be regionalized.
We could have fixed-date elections. The only caution regarding a fixed date for band council elections is that I do not think there should be a fixed date right across Canada, but there could easily be a fixed date within one nation. We have 10 communities in the Algonquin Nation. There could be a fixed date for that nation, and a fixed date for the Innu and other groups. That approach could work.
We have to push the envelope a little bit to see if that approach is workable. We have trained people who handle elections at the community level, but elections are complex issues, especially with mail-out ballots and security. We want total fairness. There can be no perception of something odd going on. That is what I suggest.
Senator Carstairs: Welcome, Mr. Whiteduck. If you could change five things in the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs today, what would they be?
Mr. Whiteduck: First, the elders have told us for a long time that the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs would not exist. The department is the imposition of the bureaucracy. Again, I have been involved in education all my life. I am a strong advocate of education, training, our First Nations languages and whatnot.
The successes we have had in our community have been in spite of these idiots at the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs who have gotten in our way. Had we listened to everything they told us, we would not be where we are now in our community. We are a community that has never gone in deficit. Our community does not allow deficit spending. We live within our means. That is hard sometimes — as it is now — but that is what we do. The Department of Indian and Northern Affairs is one thing I would change.
Our communities and elders need to return to our own forms of governance and to trying to understand what those forms are. The world has evolved as have we, but those ways have always sustained us in the past. Unlike the Iroquois or the Anishnawbe peoples, we were somewhat different. We were more nomadic. We were family groupings often led by men. The men had the territory. Women played a significant and important role, but it was the men who passed on the territory to their eldest son, etcetera.
We need to return to those traditions, because that is where the strength lies. We see it in our young people when they regain their language and traditions. They feel good and feel they have something no contribute. Currently, most of our young people are disenfranchised and hurting.
Band councils can only do what we can do. We are under the Indian Act and, as I heard Ms. Gabriel say earlier, under the minister. I came into office, but I am not under the minister. It may be like that on paper, but I was taught that we as chief and council are no higher or lower. We are in the circle, the spokespeople. We bring the discussion and reflections of the people to whatever table.
That is who we are. I am not better or worse than anyone. I remind people, and our council tells our membership, that if at any time our heads become too big, give us a swift kick. They have to bring us down to earth. We may have forgotten, and sometimes we do.
Important elders I have talked to over the years say we cannot scrap the Indian Act without knowing what will replace it. It is the idea of one dollar for four quarters — we may get only three. Before you do anything, make sure it will be an improvement, and that our fundamental rights are protected in our territories. That is what we are trying to do.
Whether we are discussing electoral reform or other things, there is a high level of frustration on the part of our community members. I am not sure that the Senate or the House of Commons fully understands what that frustration means. I hope you do. I feel it every day. When I travel to other communities, I see the lost potential of our young people and the suicides. I ask how Canada can allow this situation to happen. How can we collectively allow the poverty that exists? Explain that to me.
We were the First Peoples. We never gave up our land. Natural resources are being taken. Non-native populations are doing well, for the most part, and gaining wealth while we live in poverty, literally at each other's throats. When I see a five-year-old anywhere, I ask what hope there is for that child. What have I done — not anyone else — as a leader, to help that five-year-old. That is critical. When I see that five-year-old, or 18-year-old who has disappeared from the community, gone missing or been murdered, I say there is something awfully wrong in this country.
Senator Carstairs: You stated that you have been engaged most of your life in education. Study after study tells me that on average, an Aboriginal child has $2,000 less per year spent on his or her education than a non-Aboriginal child.
How can we expect the Aboriginal child to reach a level of competence if we are not prepared to give the dollars to ensure the quality of education?
Mr. Whiteduck: We could have a long discussion about education. I was directly involved, along with other community members, in establishing a school in the community. That work began with an elementary school and we now have our own high school. We are only one of two schools in Canada that issue our own high school diploma recognized by colleges. The diploma is not a ministry diploma. We worked hard to achieve that goal. We are, indeed, underfunded. At the end of the day, we work within the budget that we have. We are struggling.
Our First Nations languages are being lost. We have trouble staying on top of the educational reforms taking place, in Quebec in our case. In spite of that difficulty, we are graduating students who are going to college. We have approximately 150 students at the post-secondary level. Three students from our community are studying medicine, which is a big step for us, and a number are in law school and other programs.
We worked hard for that goal. Parents have seen the importance of education, but not simply any education. It also had to be an education well-anchored in who we were as Anishnawbe, but knowing that they go out in the world.
People often ask if we want our young people to come back to the community. We say yes, if they cannot find employment. However, we are hoping that we are preparing them for the world. No matter where they go, they can contribute because they know who they are as Anishnawbe. They will share those teachings that will benefit all Canadians. It does not matter in the end if they return to our community. This goal is what we are trying to accomplish at our little community school.
Underfunding is now at a point where we are not sure what we will do. We may have to throw the keys back to INAC and say, you obviously have the answers. We may have to throw them to the provincial government.
For years, millions of dollars have continued to be paid to provincial systems. The dropout rate is atrocious. Their graduation rate is a little better than First Nations, but still not good and the millions of dollars still go to the province. Accountability has to happen from provincial boards. Our children deserve opportunities equal to all other Canadians, which our young people clearly are not receiving.
Senator Raine: It is good to hear about what you are doing, especially with regard to education. I wish you luck to continue with those successes.
Everyone wants to find a simple solution. Our committee has tried to be specific in what we are looking at, which is elections.
Many people have said that two years is too short to have a solid leadership process. If we were to recommend increasing Indian Act election terms to four years, obviously, we would need consultation. How do you think we should accomplish that consultation?
Mr. Whiteduck: One important thing for me is that, as an elected leader, I have the opportunity to come before you. It is also important to hear from community members who live the experience every day.
You can go on and on with consultations. At one point, you have to draw the line and do something. You can work with some of the regional organizations prepared to participate. The effort must be a collaborative one, not an imposed one. Whenever the effort is collaborative, a positive result comes from it.
You mentioned four years. Three to four years, in my mind, makes sense. An important part of that term would have to be recall. Recall must be well-defined and allow somehow for that elected government, if it is not working well for whatever reason, to be recalled.
Our community is looking at having our own community election code that will include those kinds of things. The process of consultation is a long one. It will take at least three years before we have a final referendum where everyone has an opportunity to indicate what they want. We must try to hear as many voices as possible. There also must be opportunities for changes later on. That opportunity is important to us.
Senator Raine: We obviously want to make a recommendation. No one wants to make a recommendation that will not go anywhere. The next step is to go to the people and see if this recommendation is approved, or needs refinement or change. It is hard to see how to go directly to the people. Would you do that by going to the Assembly of First Nations?
The consultation process is vitally important. You mentioned that you have a good website for communication. Is there any way of using the Internet for consultation?
Mr. Whiteduck: Of course, but we do not know who is responding all the time in our community. When we look at the 520 homes that exist in the community, maybe only 35percent of the people have a computer or are connected to the Internet. Assumptions are often made that most people are connected, but they are not in our community and they are not in most communities. The more urbanized First Nations who have left the community have more access to the Internet. It is one form of reaching out to have input; there must be other forms, too.
I am a believer that you have to go right into the homes of people, either through a leaflet, or whatever the case may be. In our community, that approach creates debate. We hold monthly public meetings where anyone can raise any questions or issues to council. This issue would be raised if people were informed of it; for example, what are we doing; here are my thoughts; bring these things forward.
I repeat that we have worked hard to be as transparent and as open as we think we need to be as a local government of one community of the nation. That transparency and openness is critical for us to make both the community and the nation stronger.
Senator Raine: We have all learned that there is no one solution for everyone. That is why any changes that were made would have to include an ability to choose to go a different way; not to be forced to go a different way.
Mr. Whiteduck: In line with what you are saying, I suggest that the recommendations be limited to three or four. Do not make 42recommendations or 42 changes that will come raining down on a community; that is too much. Changes could be made in phases or in implementation waves so that communities can get ready and can move into it; something like that. Sometimes, we do not have the capacity to handle some of these things. You need to understand the day-to-day things that we, as leadership and administrators, have to put up with. We do not have the capacity and we are not staying on top of it. We do not have the machinery of government that you have.
Senator Raine: That is interesting, because you are a large band with 2,735 members. We have spoken to bands with less than 300. Yet, in a sense, they have to deliver, or they are expected to deliver, the same kinds of services as larger bands.
Yes, we appreciate that a lot of work is being done by the band and the council.
The Chair: Members of this committee, I know, are all concerned as well about the loss of a generation. We have to move quickly on some of these files as a nation — I am not speaking from a partisan point of view; I am speaking as a Canadian — so that we do not lose another generation of Aboriginal youth. They should be contributors to our economy and to the well-being of our economy.
We appreciate your presentation here tonight. Your recommendations went right to the subject in regard to terms, and so on. If you have anything else to contribute that you think of, contact the clerk. We appreciate your straightforward and candid answers, chief, and wish you well in your new role as chief.
With that, we will go in camera to discuss future business.
(The committee continued in camera.)