Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Aboriginal Peoples
Issue 23 - Evidence - December 9, 2009
OTTAWA, Wednesday, December 9, 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.
Senator Gerry St. Germain (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good evening, honourable senators, members of the public and all viewers across the country watching these proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples on CPAC or possibly on the web. I am Gerry St. Germain from British Columbia, and I have the honour and privilege of chairing this committee.
The mandate of this committee is to examine legislation and matters relating to the Aboriginal peoples of Canada generally. This gives the committee a broad scope to look into issues of all types that touch on matters of concern to First Nations, Inuit and Metis.
The purpose of the public portion of today's meeting is to obtain a briefing from the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. After that, we will have time for questions. We will then proceed to an in camera session during which we will consider future business.
[Translation]
Before we leave the floor to our witnesses, I would like to introduce you to the members of the committee who are here.
[English]
On my left, we have Senator Brazeau, from Québec; and, next to him, Senator Lovelace Nicholas, from New Brunswick; next to her is Senator Hubley, from Prince Edward Island; and on my right, Senator Raine, from British Columbia; Senator Stewart Olsen, from New Brunswick; and last, but definitely not least, Senator Patterson, from Nunavut.
Members of the committee, please help me in welcoming our witness, Betty Ann Lavallée, National Chief, Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. The Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, CAP, established in 1971, is, as the Native Council of Canada described it, the national voice of off-reserve Aboriginal people that advocates for the rights and interests of off-reserve and non-status Indians and for Metis people living in urban, rural and remote areas of Canada.
Ms. Lavallée was elected National Chief of CAP in September 2009 and served as the chief of the New Brunswick Aboriginal Peoples Council, a CAP affiliate, since 1977. On behalf of the committee, I would like to congratulate you on your recent election to National Chief, Ms. Lavallée. I read some of your biography. You come with great credentials. You were in the service, which is near to my heart because so was I. We are pleased to have you here.
You have a presentation, I presume. Hopefully you will give us enough time to ask questions and get answers. This is not the same as the House of Commons: We have answer period as well as Question Period. Let us turn the meeting over to you, Ms. Lavallée.
Betty Ann Lavallée, National Chief, Congress of Aboriginal Peoples: Good evening, Senator St. Germain, senators and participants. It is an honour to be today here on the traditional and unceded land of the Algonquin people to present to the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples.
I am a status Mi'kmaq who has lived all my life off-reserve. I am from Geary, New Brunswick, and am the former Chief and President of the New Brunswick Aboriginal Peoples Council. On September 12, I was elected National Chief of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. For 38 years, we have represented the rights and interests of status and non-status Indians living off-reserve and Metis peoples in the key areas of self-government, Aboriginal and treaty rights, land claims, social and health programs, environment, economic development, research, governance and political recognition.
CAP was instrumental in the constitutional negotiations of the 1980s, and we were responsible for the inclusion of Metis into section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
Traditionally speaking, Mi'kmaq culture was matrilineal, and women were the leaders. Emma LaRocque, a noted Aboriginal scholar, has said that colonization has taken a toll on all Aboriginal peoples, but perhaps it has taken its greatest toll on women. Women continue to be discriminated against through the Indian Act, but through the brave work of people such as Sharon McIvor, Senator Sandra Lovelace Nicholas and Jeanette Lavell, we are taking this legislation apart piece by piece. We have never bought into the Indian Act, and we have stood our ground and lived on our traditional territories. Through this odious legislation, we are denied our birthrights and are treated as second-class citizens.
No other act has caused more division among Aboriginal peoples than has the Indian Act. It has divided the Mi'kmaq, Cree, Ojibwa into bands. Peoples have been divided into non-status Indians, band members, non-band members and on-and off-reserve groups. The right to be self-defining is inherent and integral to the preservation of Aboriginal identities and cultures.
I am a registered Indian and classified, under the Indian Act as a section 6(2) Indian. Under the law, my son is not entitled to be registered as an Indian. We are graded the same as cattle or grades of beef. It is unadulterated discrimination. Fighting to end this inhumane treatment and this colonial era of thinking is a central priority for CAP.
The core problem we face is the federal government's denial that it has jurisdiction over Metis and non-status Indians under section 91.24 of the Constitution Act, 1867.
The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, RCAP, reported that this denial was the core of federal government discrimination. We say that this denial is wrong in law, and we are seeking a judicial declaration to resolve the issue. The declaration will remove a major obstacle to negotiating a range of matters pertaining to the rights and interests of Metis and non-status Indians.
The federal government has refused or failed to negotiate with us in good faith. As a result of their legal position, Metis and non-status Indians have suffered discrimination in health care, education, and other benefits, as well as the opportunity to negotiate or enter treaties with respect to "unextinguished" Aboriginal rights or agreements.
It is difficult in 10 minutes to cover the entire range of complex issues that this Senate committee has set out to address. I would like to emphasize some basic facts that are not well understood by Canadians. Census of Canada, 1951 reported that 6.7 per cent of the Aboriginal population lived in cities. In 2006, the census reported that over 60 per cent of the ancestral-based population now live in urban areas. The movement of Aboriginal people into urban centres represents the most significant demographic for policy-makers, yet federal and provincial governments have been slow to react. Instead, they have been wrangling over jurisdiction, which has impeded our access to services.
Intergovernmental disputes, federal off-loading and lack of program coordination have all contributed to major social and policy problems for our constituencies. Federal and provincial jurisdictions should come to grips with this issue, but the political will to do so still does not exist. We are tired of being the hot potato tossed back and forth.
On October 29, the federal, provincial and territorial ministers responsible for Aboriginal affairs and the leaders of the national Aboriginal organizations met in Toronto to discuss education, economic development and health and well-being. This came about as a result of the 2009 Council of the Federation meeting, which established an Aboriginal working group. We all recognize that a federal-provincial-territorial-Aboriginal, or FPTA, process can provide a foundation to pave the way forward on a wide variety of initiatives. Intergovernmental relations lie at the heart of Canadian federalism. Despite this, it appears that the federal government is not supporting a renewal of an FPTA process. We urge this Senate committee to recommend that the federal government participate in this process as a full and effective partner leading to a first ministers' meeting with national Aboriginal leaders.
There is a draft American declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples. I would like to recognize the efforts of President Obama to dialogue with Indians in the United States. For his efforts, the Crow Nation has given him the honorary name of Barack Black Eagle. Most importantly, there is an expectation that the U.S. will adopt the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
CAP participated in the twelfth round of negotiations seeking an agreement for an American declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples. Thirty-five countries are negotiating this declaration, which is using the UN declaration as a minimum standard. Canada is not negotiating or tabling text. The representatives at the table are silent. They have indicated that they will not block consensus as long as the documents explicitly state that the declaration does not apply to Canada.
In contrast to the Canadian position, the government of Bolivia has adopted the UN declaration as national law. Increasingly, the Canadian government's position on indigenous rights is out of step with the rest of the world and now with the countries of the Western hemisphere.
We recommend that this Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples send a strong message that Canada must resume active negotiation and commit to the adoption of a strong American declaration. This is now a moral and an ethical issue for Canada. It is one thing to deny indigenous peoples within borders but quite another to deny us in the entire Western hemisphere.
With respect to language, CAP is opposed to the use of unconstitutional language when referencing the Aboriginal peoples of Canada. This Senate committee uses unconstitutional language, and it should end. It is CAP's position that it is important to understand and respect sections 25 and 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. While the language of the Constitution is clear, federal departments and agencies appear to be uninterested in advancing either the meaning of these sections or what court dicta has called for. CAP frequently receives documents from the federal government using incorrect references to the Constitution, resulting in text that is biased and discriminatory toward non-status Indians.
We have distributed a document to the members of this committee entitled "Changes to the Indian Act Affecting Indian Registration and Band Membership: McIvor v. Canada." This is our response to Canada's engagement process to amend the Indian Act, following up on the ruling by the British Columbia Court of Appeal. This ruling found that that section 6 of the Indian Act discriminated on the basis of sex and violated section 15 of the Charter. When Sharon McIvor filed for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, they refused to hear her appeal. As a result, the larger gender discrimination issue remains to be addressed.
Canada has decided to amend the Indian Act without consultation with Aboriginal peoples. They have embarked on an engagement process to inform us about the type of amendment to be made. By labelling it as an "engagement process" as opposed to "consultation," Canada hopes to avoid any duty to consult with Aboriginal peoples. Accommodating communal identities is one of the most important and inherent Aboriginal rights that should be protected by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
The status and membership regime has created more inequities than are apparent in legislation or even in the McIvor case. CAP is calling for a larger discussion, which brings all those affected by these Indian Act provisions to the table. We would hope that this Senate committee would endorse and recommend such a process.
Starting in 1997, the Department of Justice Canada began introducing a new form of Aboriginal non-derogation clause to federal statutes. The effect of this is profound and has resulted in a clause that benefits only the Crown. This change was introduced without consultation or discussion with CAP. We realize that, in 2007, the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs undertook a study of section 35 rights, but we are continuing to raise this issue of legal mischief. CAP and others view these non-derogation clauses as arbitrary and haphazard.
As your committee undertakes its deliberations, we urge you to reflect on the non-derogation clause and its importance to Aboriginal, treaty and land claim rights holders. CAP's position is clear. We want the language of section 25 used in all clauses being attached to federal legislation. The existing clauses must be withdrawn.
Everyone on this committee is aware that the health status of Aboriginal peoples is much lower than that of the Canadian population. If you name any health issue, it is likely that the prevalence in our communities is much higher: from type 2 diabetes to heart disease to substance abuse to fetal alcohol syndrome — these are all major health problems for our people. CAP's key priority is to work with the federal and provincial governments to resolve the complex jurisdictional issues that impact on the provision of good health care. We want to ensure that our people obtain the same level of access and support that is taken for granted by other Canadians.
Our first and central consideration is the fact that the health status of our people is well below the national average. We need intelligent health policies to overcome these disparities; we need to be involved; we need the capacity to be involved; and we need an integrated and transparent process to find solutions.
I have written to Minister Aglukkaq concerning the importance of renewing the Aboriginal diabetes initiative. Type 2 diabetes is an epidemic in our communities. Dr. Stewart Harris, one of Canada's leading authorities on this disease, has reported that the prevalence has skyrocketed. An article in Monday's The Globe and Mail described the epidemic as an "economic tsunami." The Aboriginal diabetes initiative for off-reserve and Metis has not been renewed. We have lost our network of front-line prevention and education coordinators, as well as all the gains we have made in the last 10 years.
The housing crisis being faced in our communities requires a national Aboriginal housing strategy and action plan. For those of you who may not know, our organization was the driving force behind the establishment of the Rural and Native Housing Program. This program resulted in action on the long-neglected housing and shelter needs of our communities and constituencies. It produced thousands of housing units across Canada. Today, however, many of these units need to be replaced or repaired.
The work of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples is important since the Canadian public continues to associate Aboriginal issues with Indians living on-reserve. However, the reality is that 80 per cent of the Aboriginal ancestral population now live off-reserve with 60 per cent living in urban areas.
When will federal government policies reflect this reality? Ever since the RCAP report, there has been an acute public policy need for this change, but it has not occurred. This policy breakdown is symbolic of the political reality of off-reserve and Metis peoples in Canada. It is part of the long shadow of grievances and the misunderstandings in our relations. The process of reconciliation flows from the Crown's duty of honourable dealing toward Aboriginal peoples. This committee is part of this all-embracing principle. We look forward to your recommendations.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Thank you very much for coming her this evening. Once again, because I am new to the committee, I have to apologize for my lack of knowledge.
Is your organization funded by the government? I am not clear. I ask you because I know that funds go to Indians on reservations, but how do you manage? Are you funded by off-reserve Indians or by the government?
Ms. Lavallée: Our national office is funded through a funding agreement with the Office of the Federal Interlocutor, which has since moved under the purview of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, INAC. It is now referred to as basic organization capacity development. Basically, it would cover about one quarter of our actual expenses per year.
That would be the same situation within our provincial-territorial organizations from east to west. Unfortunately, some of our organizations at this time are not receiving that core funding. Other than that, any other monies that we receive are through contracts or proposals that we submit to the various federal departments to undertake research. We are able, sometimes, to generate a small administrative fee from that work. However, that would probably be the total sum of our funding.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Thank you. I see that programs exist for off-reserve Indians and that funding flows from INAC to the off-reserve.
Ms. Lavallée: Not necessarily.
Senator Stewart Olsen: That is what I am wondering about. I am sorry to interrupt you. There are things that are established, such as new funding to establish the Aboriginal Skills and Training Strategic Investment Fund. Do you manage those or does someone else?
Ms. Lavallée: It would depend. Those agreements you are referring to are through the Aboriginal Human Resources Development Strategy and are for employment and training. We have to bid; you have to answer to a request-for-proposal process, or RFP process, in each province to deliver that program to your people off-reserve.
Anyone can submit a bid on those, non-Aboriginal or Aboriginal, and those are renewed every five years. We are now in the process of looking at a new program on assets, which will work together with the economic development strategy that has been announced, and education and health.
At this point, we are in early discussions to set up a working committee with the appropriate federal department, INAC and Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, HRSDC, in this case, to begin the work on these types of initiatives.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Do you show them your accountability measures and everything?
Ms. Lavallée: We are required to follow Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat guidelines.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Do they monitor that? How would you win a bid?
Ms. Lavallée: It would depend on the quality of the proposal being submitted. It would have to meet all the terms and conditions in the RFP call, and we would have to show the capacity to be able to deliver effectively.
In the case of most of our provincial-territorial organizations, PTOs, it is delivered province-wide. It is not site-specific. It would have to be delivered throughout the whole province.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Mainly, you are an advocacy group.
Ms. Lavallée: The national office is the representative body for the provincial organization, and we advocate on their behalf.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Your salaries come from the small funding that comes to you.
Ms. Lavallée: That is right.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Welcome. How do you become a member of your organization?
Ms. Lavallée: CAP itself does not have the membership. The membership is held in the province, and the membership from province to province would be determined on the territory, the treaties that have been signed, the ancestry and any court cases that they might have already won.
The one I am most familiar with is the province of New Brunswick, being the former chief and president for 13 years. We were successful in winning several hunting and fishing cases in New Brunswick. Some individuals are not registered under the Indian Act because we are still under pre-Confederation treaties. The beneficiary issue of the pre-Confederation treaties has yet to be established.
However, each province would differ depending on the historical nation. I am not talking about reserves; I am talking about the historical nation of people; the collectivity.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Could you tell the committee what a perfect solution would be for your organization, for funding, for the status quo, the registered and so forth?
Ms. Lavallée: Equality.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Equality; I agree with you.
Ms. Lavallée: We are not a lesser people. We are the same people. We just happen to live on the wrong side of the track.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: That was not our fault. People were put on reserves, and people were hunting at the time, and they were not considered registered. That is not the problem here.
Do you think one of the solutions would be or could be the study of the Indian Act?
Ms. Lavallée: The Indian Act has been studied to death. It has been in existence since the late 1800s. It is archaic. It has never been amended to reflect modern realities, such as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I believe that it is time for the Indian Act to be abolished.
We need something new. We, formerly the Native Council of Canada and now the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, have always called for an Aboriginal peoples act to reflect section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, which states that the federal government has responsibilities for Indians, Inuit and Metis; it says nothing about First Nations.
Therefore, we believe it is now time. It is now being taken apart, piece by piece. With the passage of the Canadian Human Rights Act and the ability to challenge the act, now, and in the future, by the members of communities — I believe it is within three years — will throw communities, organizations and everything into chaos. The human rights committee will not be able to handle the amount of human rights claims and complaints that will be coming.
Senator Brazeau: I would like to ask a supplementary on Senator Lovelace Nicholas's first question with respect to membership. Obviously, having been where you are now, I know the answer to this. However, to be fair, the same question was asked of the Métis National Council.
Provincial affiliate organizations are members of CAP who have the membership list, but could you share with the committee, perhaps in the future if not this evening, what the membership numbers are in each of the individual provincial affiliate organizations? As I understand, a new section was added to the constitution of CAP for all affiliate organizations to divulge their membership numbers in the exercise of greater accountability.
Please share that with the committee at a future date, unless you have the answer now. We would like to know what the membership numbers are for each of those provincial affiliate organizations. That would be appreciated.
Ms. Lavallée: Senator Brazeau is right. As part of their verification process to maintain constituent standing within the organization, the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples instituted that each provincial or territorial organization must have an audit of their membership numbers and have them verified. That must be submitted annually now, with the minutes of their annual general meeting, AGM, their audited financial statements and other current board of directors.
In the East, we have made great strides working with the Office of the Federal Interlocutor in establishing and having ours computerized. The work is now beginning in Quebec, and Ontario is getting there. Some of our PTOs are at various stages.
Some of the problem areas at this point are relative with some of the newer PTOs because they do not receive funding from the government under any of the programs. Theirs is basically a voluntary organization, and they are attempting now to be able to set up their membership standards and numbers, learning from those of us who have more experience.
Senator Brazeau: The purpose of membership numbers is important because significant amounts of money are being spent on Aboriginal peoples every year by the federal government. The majority of it goes to reserves, and many organizations, such as the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, the Métis National Council and the Native Women's Association of Canada, receive funding from the federal government to deliver various programs and services and to offer other services.
In my opinion, it is important to look at the membership numbers because no government would want to issue X amount of dollars if no membership base exists to service the people who organizations claim to represent — and also those that they service, who may not be members.
The National Association of Friendship Centres, for example, who are obviously urban-based and have a network of 118 friendship centres across the country, also deliver services to the off-reserve Aboriginal population. They have concrete data as to the number of individuals who they service each and every year. It is important to look at the membership numbers for funding purposes, I believe, and also those that are being serviced. That gives the taxpayers and citizens all across this country a better idea of what is going where, and for whom, to ensure that no duplication of services occurs.
Ms. Lavallée: I could not agree with you more. However, I want to bring to the Senate committee's attention — and I can speak to my former organization — that you did not have to be a member of the organization to obtain services. We were status-blind. We provided services regardless of whether people were members of the organization, as long as they could demonstrate the need and they met the criteria of the program that was being delivered on behalf of the government.
Membership itself was for the political process. That was to participate in annual general meetings and so on.
In New Brunswick, we have universal suffrage. Any off-reserve Aboriginal person, besides the members, can vote for the provincial chief. All he or she has to do is have his or her name put on a voters' list. We have an independent electoral commission that monitors that and is administered by that. The reality of the situation is that you cannot force people to join political organizations, but you still can deliver programs and services.
The Chair: In your presentation, you said that this Senate committee uses unconstitutional language, and it should end. You should never ask a question unless you know the answer. However, I will ask you. In what particular area do you feel offended?
Ms. Lavallée: The term "First Nation" offends us. In section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, it states Indian, Inuit, Metis. I have been brought up in a historical and traditional Aboriginal family. I belong to the Mi'kmaq Nation. I may live off-reserve, but I am an integral part of the nation. The Mi'kmaq Nation extends from the Gaspé all the way to Newfoundland.
"First Nation" has been used to replace "Indian." If you use the term "Indian," then for those who self-identify as a non-status Indian, this is another way of government to deny services, benefits and recognition.
My hope and dream some day is that my nation will be reconstituted, where everyone in the Mi'kmaq Nation will have equality. Regardless of where they live, regardless of if there is a registration under the Indian Act, they will be citizens of the nation.
The Chair: I was in the Navajo Nation with some of the members of this particular committee; and Navajo President Joe Shirley said, "I am not an Indian; I am a Native American." He said that the White people were looking for India, so when they first made contact with them, they called them Indians; but really they are Native Americans. He said, "I do not live on a reserve. Animals are kept on a reserve. I live on my traditional lands."
I hear what you are saying. This is maybe not justification in your eyes, but on the word "Indian," I am a Metis, and I grew up being called a half-breed. Having said that, it just built character; it made me stronger.
Senator Brazeau: This question deals with accountability, and I have asked this of other organizations as well. Obviously, you receive money from the federal government to be able to operate on a day-to-day basis. What level of accountability exists within the organization to ensure that the funding that is received is properly spent on what it is supposed to be spent on, and that the terms and conditions of the agreements are fulfilled?
Second, what level of oversight does the funder — whether it is INAC, HRSDC, Health Canada or others that fund the organization — have over the entire administration of the funding that flows through the contribution agreements with the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples?
Ms. Lavallée: I am in the process right now — I have my style of leadership and how I like to do things, everyone does — of instituting different accounting procedures to the letter of contracts. I am working at setting up separate accounts for each program so that any time funding comes in, that funding goes directly to that account set up for that specific purpose. Transmittal slips or cheque requisition slips will accompany it. Paperwork will be photocopied. We are working with the various departments at this point, with their general accountants or certified public accountants, CPAs, to look at other measures that we can take.
I want to ensure that every cent we receive is used in a manner that is accountable to my board and to my people. I am anal-retentive when it comes to those matters; I am a hands-on chief. My staff right now does not like me very much, I think, because I always question them, go through files and demand answers. They have been working many late hours, early mornings and weekends. A few of them are behind me who can attest to that.
However, oversight now is that budgets are being scrutinized and double-checked. A management committee is in place to work with me and checks all the statements, bank transactions, credit card receipts, et cetera almost on a monthly basis. I have cancelled BlackBerrys and taken away telephones. I am looking at every aspect to cut corners so that money is available for the real issues that we need to talk about and to be able to do some additional work.
We have several court cases that we have worked on for years. We no longer have funding under the legal defence, so we will now have to pay for these cases out of our own pocket. I have to free up every dollar possible to be able to support these cases through the rest of the court system. I am really penny-pinching.
Senator Brazeau: I appreciate that you are penny-pinching, but that is not really about the contribution agreements that you receive from different departments to do whatever work needs to be done. What level of oversight have they done in the last couple of years to ensure that funding they provide is well spent?
Ms. Lavallée: Previously, they did not do much. The departments with which we are working seem to have many new personnel. Nearly every quarter now, they come to do "site visits" to monitor and work with our financial officer to ensure the conditions of any agreements that we have with their department will be strictly adhered to.
Senator Brazeau: Aside from a financial officer, do you have any other layers of accountability such as a board, finance committee or the entire assembly to approve financial statements, et cetera?
Ms. Lavallée: The management committee currently reports directly. The financial officer reports to me, to the management committee, the board of directors and the assembly. That will also include an auditor working with her at the same time. We are looking to have possibly the financial officer operate at the level of a CPA.
Senator Brazeau: What is a CPA?
Ms. Lavallée: It is a certified public accountant who has a designation and is bondable. Our current financial officer is already taking training and will do more.
Senator Raine: What is your relationship with the friendship centre associations? They are actively involved in delivering programs to off-reserve Natives.
Ms. Lavallée: It would depend on the area of the country in which you live. In the East, particular in New Brunswick and Halifax, and the smaller provinces, we do not have large friendship centres. They are unique to the larger provinces such as Quebec and westward in large metropolitan centres.
We work and partner with them in the East wherever we can to stretch a dollar. In the West, I believe there are good relationships in some areas and not such good relationships in others.
Senator Raine: Both organizations are in the business of delivering programs. Do you discuss with the friendship centres which organization is best to deliver which program?
Ms. Lavallée: Are you speaking about the national or local level?
Senator Raine: I am referring to the provincial level.
Ms. Lavallée: The position of our provincial chiefs and presidents, as a self-governing body, is that, similar to any government, they have the right to deliver their own programs and services. As I said, they work with friendship centres in some areas. However, there is not much working together because of the dichotomy of people in other areas.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: I would like to extend a comment to Senator Brazeau and you about penny-pinching. I think most First Nations' organizations do a great deal of penny-pinching.
Do you represent only Mi'kmaq?
Ms. Lavallée: No. As a national organization, I have provincial and territorial organizations from across Canada.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Can you name some?
Ms. Lavallée: The Native Council of Nova Scotia traditionally represents Mi'kmaq, but they also service people from other nations, such as the Cree, Ojibwa or Inuit, who happen to live in the province. The Federation of Newfoundland Indians is in the process of finalizing their agreement with INAC for registration. They represent primarily mainland Mi'kmaq. The Labrador Metis Nation are historically Inuit, but they self-identity as Metis. I am half-blood, the same as the good senator. That is what makes us tough. In New Brunswick, we represent Maliseet, Mi'kmaq and Passamaquoddy.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Thank you. I simply wanted you to say that you do represent Maliseet. You had only mentioned Mi'kmaq.
The Chair: On behalf of honourable senators, I would like to thank Ms. Lavallée for her presentation tonight. It is enlightening. We are trying to meet all leaders of the various organizations to understand better the situation as we work to try to improve the plight of First Nations people across this country. If there is any way, at any time, Ms. Lavallée, that you feel this committee could help you in your work, do not hesitate to contact the committee clerk. We would like to help.
Thank you for taking time to be with us. You did an excellent job.
(The committee continued in camera.)