Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) Committee on May 17th, 2006

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you.

Very briefly, I refer the committee to a study further to the Cornell study from Harvard, an extremely important one from a professor named Chandler at the University of British Columbia. Rather than relating the level of self-determination or self-government to economic outcomes, it's related to the level of youth suicide, which is perhaps one of the greatest tragedies in any society when it occurs. That work is carrying on to widen its scope now to relate to a number of other quality-of-life issues in aboriginal communities.

That's only to add emphasis to the point that's been made: that self-determination in culturally appropriate ways and strong relationships between orders of government is an extremely healthy thing, and to be sought after.

I don't have a question.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. Jennings.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm sorry I couldn't be here for the first part of your presentation. But, being a bit of a speed reader, I did manage to read the brief you submitted and to hear what you said after oral question period.

I'd like to explore one of the points you raised. There's a huge myth about the financial assistance the Government of Canada has been providing to aboriginal communities for over a century. The myth of so-called handouts exists in the general population, among whites and other non-aboriginals.

You talked about the Crown's fiduciary responsibility toward first nations, in part because the white people—the French first and later the English—came and confiscated land. This was land that wasn't won through war. Later, other land was transferred under treaties, and in exchange, the Crown had a duty toward first nations.

That responsibility still exists because there was no expiry date in the treaties. For example, if I sign a contract with Mr. Poilievre without indicating any expiry date, I will be obliged to give him a sum of money, for example, or to look after him or his descendants in perpetuity. So, even 200 years later, that agreement is still valid and the obligation still exists.

In my opinion, all parties that have been in power in Canada have wronged the first nations by failing to educate people of French or British origin and people of all other ethnic origins who arrived subsequently.

Does that make sense?

[Bob Watts]

Thank you for the question.

Absolutely we'd share that view. It's clear that for most first nations people in Canada there is a treaty relationship between the Crown and first nations. There are also places in Canada where there is no treaty, and right now they're in a treaty-making process. What I think we've said to each other here in Canada is that's representative of our relationship; it's representative of how we've chosen to live together here; it's how we contracted each other; it's how we have mutual obligations to each other. And as you indicated, those things are forever. It's part of the foundations of this country.

And now we also see on the government agenda something we find really interesting. We're talking about fiscal imbalance. A lot of people think fiscal imbalance is only about the federal and provincial governments. We're arguing we have a role in fiscal imbalance.

Some people have talked about it as revisiting 1867. We want to be at the table because we want to revisit 1867. We're part of the fiscal federation. Our treaties are part of that; our people are part of that, and we want to be involved in those discussions as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Monsieur Petit has a little under four minutes

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Good afternoon, Mr. Jock.

I have just one question for you and it's very straightforward. Your proposed amendment to the definitions in Bill C-2 excludes you completely. Is it true that the aim of your amendment is to exclude you from the application of the act? Is that your goal or is it a compromise that you are suggesting to us?

[Richard Jock]

Yes.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Yes? Okay.

Merci.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Madam Guay, you have hardly any time at all, just three minutes.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The goal of aboriginal people is full autonomy. Efforts must therefore be made to create tools that will enable you to reach that goal through treaties and agreements and assistance from the federal government.

If there were an aboriginal Auditor General, would that person have to be as fully transparent as what is provided for in Bill C-2? Would that person report to Parliament, like all auditors general do? Would that person be accountable?

In your opinion, if Bill C-2 doesn't apply to you and you appoint an aboriginal Auditor General, would there be as much transparency as if you were covered by Bill C-2?

[Richard Jock]

I think there are two elements to your question, and it is a good question.

One element is that certainly, through a process of development, which we envision would include an incubation process within the Office of the Auditor General itself, we see the five principles of accountability being the same, regardless of whether it's a first nations government or a non-first-nations government. I think that what would be of interest to us is the development of the institution and a look at cultural match in terms of how some of the elements of transparency are carried out.

For example, at a community level for a first nation, it may be much more important to have ways of achieving transparency that match up with the local community, such as through a regular event or a feast or a regular annual gathering. These may be more culturally appropriate ways of addressing transparency than publishing something in a gazette or in a document. We would look for ways of expressing and carrying out those five principles in a way that makes sense.

The other element is that what we are asking when we request our exclusion from this bill is that first nations governments be treated the same as all other governments. Essentially, the way it's stated now, first nations governments are singled out for application in this legislation. So I would ask why first nations governments are being singled out in this process.

Second, if the Auditor General has already clearly stated her opinion on the value of engaging in this kind of exercise under this bill, and has clearly given a considered opinion, an apolitical opinion in my view, why is this still being considered, given that feedback? To me, this is beginning to look like it's a provision that makes no sense and is for no reason. If that is the situation, then I would ask why. And I have not heard a reason why.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Mr. Jock.

Mr. Watts, Mr. Wilson, thank you to the three of you for coming this afternoon and giving us your views. I know the committee will consider your comments. Thank you very much.

[Bob Watts]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We will have a brief break for a couple of minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Okay, I'd like to reconvene the meeting.

Our next guest comes from the Assemblée des Premières Nations du Québec et du Labrador, Ghislain Picard, who is the regional vice-chief. We also have Ellen Gabriel, who is the president of Quebec Native Women Inc. Good afternoon to both of you, and thank you very much for coming in.

Ms. Gabriel, I understand you are going first. Thank you.

As you have probably gathered, we have opening comments and then members of the committee will put questions to you.

Ms. Gabriel.

[Ellen Gabriel, President, Quebec Native Women Inc.]

[Witness speaks in her native language].

Good afternoon.

The Quebec Native Women's Association supports our brothers at the Assembly of First Nations and the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador and their efforts toward developing accountability and transparency in our communities. We acknowledge, however, that most of our communities are already engaged in good practices, and a vast majority submit their annual audits every year.

The biggest stakeholders are our people, and the most vulnerable are our women and children. A more efficient allocation of resources will benefit everyone, in particular native women who desperately need more shelters and programs that deal with non-violence. Yet as Sheila Fraser pointed out in her report, our cash-strapped communities are already overburdened with reporting requirements, and these reports are seldom read.

Therefore, we need to ask how accountable INAC is to us, how much of the money supposedly allocated to first nations communities is eaten up by inefficient bureaucracy. As it stands now, approximately 35% of the moneys allocated to aboriginal peoples is actually given to first nations communities. Therefore, we are concerned that the government wants to impose yet another layer of Canadian bureaucracy on our communities, without any meaningful consultation. This would benefit no one, neither the Canadian public nor aboriginal peoples. Furthermore, this is paternalistic and goes against the government-to-government relationship that exists between first nations and the Government of Canada. It also goes against our efforts of becoming self-determining peoples once again. We therefore support the notion of an independent aboriginal auditor general and we believe that native women should be involved in the criteria and the development of this position.

In order to promote a healthier relationship between the Government of Canada and aboriginal peoples, the following are a few of the recommendations of our organization: that the Government of Canada streamline the existing reporting requirements of first nations communities in order to make them more efficient and less burdensome, as in the previous recommendations of the Auditor General of Canada; that the Government of Canada take efforts to reduce the bureaucracy of INAC so that more of the budget allocated to aboriginal peoples actually reaches aboriginal peoples living on and off reserve; that the Government of Canada support aboriginal peoples in their efforts to build accountability frameworks and the development of an aboriginal auditor general and ombudsperson; that the process of developing the role of an aboriginal auditor general and ombudsperson include equitable representation of aboriginal women.

We agree with the principles of accountability and transparency, but the process should be in concert with aboriginal people. The imposition of unilateral decision-making by the Government of Canada will always be met with resistance.

Once again, I emphasize that it is time to forge a new relationship between our peoples that is based upon mutual respect, honesty, and integrity.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Monsieur Picard.

[Le vice-chef Ghislain Picard, vice-chef régional, Assemblée des Premières Nations du Québec et du Labrador]

Thank you very much.

[The witness speaks in his own language].

Good afternoon. I am honoured to be here before you today and particularly to share this forum with my sisters, the aboriginal women of Quebec, with whom we have had quite a close relationship for many years.

I began my intervention with greetings and an introduction in my language. I think it's important for you to know that it is alive and well and forms the backdrop of our identity and place on this earth and in all of creation.

First of all, I would like to salute the leaders and the people of the Algonquin Nation, to whom we owe this opportunity to meet on their ancestral land, which they have never renounced. I also salute the representatives of the Assembly of First Nations, who went before us today. They made a presentation to the committee with which the representatives of the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador are fully in agreement. I would also like to express all of my gratitude to this committee for giving us this opportunity to speak today on Bill C-2, the Federal Accountability Act.

My name is Ghislain Picard, and I am the Regional Chief of the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador. The AFNLQ represents the 38 first nations communities of the land that many people know as Quebec and Labrador. The people and nations that make up the AFNLQ. AFNQL are the Cree, the Atikamekw, the Naskapis, the Innu, the Abenakis, the Huron-Wendat, the Mohawk, the Algonquin, the Malecite and the Mi'gmaq.

Please understand that my comments today are intended to convey a point of view that may seem difficult for some to accept, but I do this with the greatest respect for Parliament.

My presentation is short and to the point. I leave you with three simple messages:

One, I hope to have you begin to understand your obligations and Parliament's obligations to account to first nations for successive government's actions that have inhibited our very survival as peoples and nations.

Two, to have Parliament begin to honour its obligations to first nations by removing any reference to first nations in Bill C-2 and find alternative negotiated arrangements to deal with improving first nations' accountability for funds they receive that are voted by Parliament.

Three, the AFNQL accepts the notion of accountability.

You are charged with examining a bill that approaches accountability from a distinct but limited point of view. First nations, on the other hand, view accountability broadly. Canada has yet to account fully to its constituents and to first nations for its poor performance. And by the way, this could be a quote from the Auditor General's report yesterday. First nations are pressing Canada to account for and resolve our original jurisdiction in relation to Canada and full compensation for land theft and ongoing control and benefit from our lands and resources.

Let's examine the definition of “accountability”. In short, it is to show and take responsibility for actions and expenditure of funds, including the setting of goals, effective means to reach them, efficiency in performance, and results achieved.

First nations apply the definition to Canada in its broad, historic, and contemporary context. In other words, Canada sets unilateral goals for first nations. It devises plans to absorb us into the body politic. It ruthlessly applies its plan to our adults and children alike, and the results are poverty, isolation, lack of opportunity, decline of unique cultures, youth suicides, little or no economy, third-world infrastructure, harassment of traditional practices, and the list goes on.

You are wrong if you think I was referring only to historic times. For example, the inclusion of the clause in Bill C-2 that gives the Auditor General new powers to audit first nations governments is just one more, in this case, recent and contemporary example of unacceptable unilateral behaviour affecting first nations jurisdiction.

My comments are not just rhetoric. The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples and countless studies, including one from Harvard University, established that the socio-economic well-being of first nations depends on the recognition and implementation of first nations jurisdiction and first nations control over our territories; in other words, the practical, on-the-ground improvement of living conditions is tied to such recognition.

The Royal Proclamation of 1763 requires Canada to negotiate its relationship with first nations. Most of the aboriginal title in Quebec is still not resolved. The terms of negotiations are so restrictive that Innu resources, for example, are being stripped from the land while negotiations drag on.

Canada's Constitution, the treaties and the courts, all supported by many studies, require the federal government to resolve the relationship with first nations through negotiations, to act in our best interest, and to uphold the honour of the Crown. Parliament shares those obligations. It votes money, passes legislation, oversees the government, and upholds the Constitution, all responsibilities that include legal obligations when addressing first nations matters. Each of you, as members of Parliament, shares in those obligations, yet I would be surprised if you are given any training, orientation, or information about that obligation. It is perhaps convenient to leave that duty to others, to your colleagues who have an interest, whose ridings include or border reserves, or those who are given specific responsibilities to deal with first nations. That is not good enough.

Unless you all collectively and individually accept and enforce the legal obligations you adopted when you voluntarily ran for office, Canada will continue to lurch in an ineffective, inefficient, and unaccountable direction as it relates to first nations.

The AFNQL recommends that this committee amend the bill to drop any reference to first nations and that it recommend to Parliament that the government be directed to develop jointly through negotiations with first nations suitable alternative arrangements to adjust improvements to first nations accountability for funds voted by Parliament.

The AFNQL also recommends that this committee seek independent legal advice on its obligations under law in relation to first nations and provisions relating to first nations in this bill.

Although the following recommendation may go beyond your mandate, I place it on the record nonetheless. The AFNQL further recommends that this committee recommend to Parliament that it contract independent, constitutional and legal advice regarding its collective and individual members' obligations under law to first nations, generally and that it develop and implement jointly with first nations training, orientation and information packages for all MPs about their obligations in relation to first nations.

Let there be no mistake. The AFNQL supports the notion of accountability. First nations leaders are currently accountable to the people who elect us. There may be room for improvement but it is not through unilaterally imposed legislation that improvements will be made. It is not accountability measures in legislation that will define the relationship between first nations and Canada. It is the relationship with Canada that will define suitable accountability measures.

I want to close my remarks in the beautiful Innu language. I will express the hope that someday the Innu and all first nations in Quebec and Labrador are fully respected in Canada and here in Parliament by having simultaneous translation of all debates in our language.

[The witness speaks in his own language.]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Monsieur Picard, Ms. Gabriel.

Each of the four caucuses may have questions for you.

We'll start with Mr. Owen.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you, Monsieur Picard, Madam Gabriel, for your two presentations, which I think we found to be very straightforward and clear, if not self-evident.

As we had discussed earlier in this committee, and it was reinforced by the Assembly of First Nations presentation and both of yours, the responsibility of the Crown, as represented by the Government of Canada, under section 35 of the Constitution is to treat aboriginal people with the respect to which they are entitled through historical rights as well as the inherent right of self-government, and I think the suggestions you've made for the removal of the reference to aboriginal people and first nations in Bill C-2 is in line with that understanding.

As members of Parliament, we look forward to further consultation with you to achieve the accountability that you seek and the Auditor General has supported in terms of both a first nations auditor general and the creation of a first nations ombudsperson office.

Thank you for your presentations.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Do we have Liberal time left?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You do, Mr. Murphy, yes.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'll get right to your recommendations. I understand the first recommendation. Are the second and third not alternatives to the first? Because if we were to omit or drop any reference.... And it's not just reference. In fact, if this proposed law did not intrude on the sovereignty of first nations, and therefore was eradicated from it.... I gather the second and third recommendations are more advisory and really wouldn't be needed.

My supplementary to that, as I go on to the second and third, is that the independent legal advice and other advice that we might seek.... This committee, frankly, might have trouble deciding how strong to make the coffee some days, so we're not likely to agree on who should be the independent legal adviser--unless you want to offer up Mr. Morgan, who's probably looking for some advice to give. But seriously, it might be very difficult for us in our structure. We have the Library of Parliament, excellent staff. We've had a number of witnesses from various federal departments to advise us, and after all, we are Parliament. So I was wondering if we could really make that work.

What would be the need--I understand your brief--to have independent legal advice if we are...and I won't say “just” to minimize it, but if we are really a committee of Parliament? The advice we receive from our parliamentary advisers is non-partisan. That's really all we can do in this context. What you're looking for is laudable, but maybe not achievable in this simple committee.

I'd like your comments on that.

[Le vice-chef Ghislain Picard]

I would say, just very briefly, that it is because of that non-partisanship that this kind of advice would be useful. I certainly feel that the onus is really on you, as representatives of Parliament, to provide that kind of opinion.

I mean, our mind is clear on the issue. We've been advising you for decades on what those obligations are, but somehow nobody seems to understand. If it weren't so, we wouldn't be finding ourselves constantly before your courts, trying to make that very point.

It seems to me it's a very vicious circle. We try to find ways to negotiate some of the tough issues that we are confronted with from time to time. When that process fails, most times there's no alternative for us but to present our case before the courts. Then that circle starts all over again. The courts send us to the negotiating table.

We ask, why don't we find ways to get that kind of opinion whereby, very objectively, from Parliament's point of view and from our first nations point of view, we can look at it and debate it? This has been going on for too long. We feel we have to find ways to provide peace.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

The first part of my question is this: if we agree on the first recommendation—and I certainly think that on this side, we all agree—is it necessary for us to consider the second and third?