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

[Le vice-chef Ghislain Picard]

Obviously, in our opinion, adopting the first recommendation is desirable. I think that even with a fair process—where everyone, including the first nations—benefits—we will constantly be confronted with these same issues. If it's not under this bill, it will be under the next, as was the case for the previous bill. We are constantly faced with this litigation, ultimately.

In addition, I think that the second recommendation could apply in this context, quite directly, in fact, but could easily apply to other legislative processes affecting us.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Monsieur Picard.

Monsieur Sauvageau.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Picard and Ms. Gabriel, thank you for your presentation. My first question is for Ms. Gabriel, but I won't forget you, don't worry.

You said in your presentation that 35 per cent of the money allocated went to the communities. I'm not very good at math, but are we to conclude that 65 per cent of the money is spent on administrative costs?

[Ellen Gabriel]

Yes, you can, if you look at the bureaucracy within INAC and the amount of money it takes to run INAC. I think the figure was taken from a document published by the Assembly of First Nations a few years ago.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I am by no means questioning the figures you just gave us, but I am going to ask a question. It seems to me that the ratio is completely inadequate, unsuitable, that's for sure. In your opinion, what would be a good ratio? It seems to me absolutely terrible that 65 per cent of the money is spent on administrative costs by the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. In your opinion, what would be an acceptable ratio?

[Ellen Gabriel]

I would say that in the ideal world 100% should go to aboriginal communities. That is where we would be able to become more self-sufficient, more self-determining, be able to save our languages, be able to deal with the violence against aboriginal women and the problems in our community. As it exists, with the programs already being decided and the criteria being predetermined by INAC, we are very limited. In a sense, we are handcuffed from growing because of insufficient resources.

I guess as it devolves, if we see a devolution of the Department of Indian Affairs, that could happen. But that's in an ideal world.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

A proportion of 65 per cent of the money is spent on administrative costs, and yesterday, the Auditor General's report said that the department follows virtually none of the Auditor General's recommendations. That's quite perplexing.

[A voice]

It's troubling.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Picard, I want to make sure I understand correctly. I come back to what Mr. Murphy said.

Your first recommendation is this: “That the bill drop any reference to first nations”. Since you say you support those who went before you, you are in favour of the proposed amendment that would add to the excluded recipients:

(d) members of the council of a band as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Indian Act [...]

Is that what you want?

[Le vice-chef Ghislain Picard]

In a way, we support the Assembly of First Nations, who went before us today. Obviously, our starting point is much more specific to the first nations of Quebec and Labrador. In fact, it rounds out the national position that was put to you a bit earlier.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

But you can't be more excluded than excluded. If you are excluded, that would suit you fine.

[Vice-Chief Ghislain Picard]

Le vice-chef Ghislain PicardIf we are excluded, keep in mind that we are still in agreement with the principle of accountability.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Yes, we'll come back to that. So, you are to be excluded from Bill C-2, but not from accountability, that's for sure.

Let's turn to the other thing now. Do you also agree with those who went before you and the Auditor General on an aboriginal Auditor General position for your communities? Is that an acceptable accountability solution to you? How should that auditor be appointed?

Let me give you an example. There is an environmental Auditor General, who works under the aegis of the current Auditor General and is completely independent, in that she files annual reports. You are probably more aware than I am of the operation of the Office of the Environmental Auditor General. Would the aboriginal Auditor General have a similar position?

I want to get this right. The Auditor General said that there were negotiations, and the previous witnesses told us that it was desirable to have such a position. Do you envisage a position similar to Ms. Fraser's? Is that what we are to understand?

[Le vice-chef Ghislain Picard]

Absolutely. As a matter of fact, our presentation today referred to the Harvard University study, which also says that first nations have to be given a chance to create their own institutions.

It is also a matter of appropriation that goes beyond culture. I listened to the comments and discussion a bit earlier. For our community, it would be a matter of pride and reclaimed dignity if we had our own institutions, which would complement existing institutions.

Besides, in Quebec, we did manage a few years ago to set up a sustainable development institution. If we were given the means, it would be an institution that could easily compete with what already exists in terms of data in Quebec, for example. Quebec has the Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement, which deals with environmental studies.

We have hoped for a long time that the institution would have the same capacity. It's a matter of identity, of recognizing our communities as entities in their own right.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you.

Do you think the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada has efficient and effective accountability? Some would impose new accountability requirements on you. In your opinion, does the department with chief responsibility for transferring funds have effective and efficient accountability? Are there improvements to be made before new requirements are imposed on you?

[Le vice-chef Ghislain Picard]

I'm going to add to the answer to the question you asked Ms. Gabriel a bit earlier by saying that it would probably be a good idea. There is some doubt about the ratio of what goes to the communities as compared to what is kept in the federal machinery for administration. There are no data on that currently, but it would be helpful to have that data.

Let me add a comment. The situation is a bit ironic. For five years, the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada—and I'm talking strictly about the Quebec region—has been scheduling annual meetings for planning for the next year, but we are not included in any of them. And yet we are supposed to be the ones, on behalf of the communities, who benefit from that administration, but we are not there. The same thing happens with accountability at year end. The accountability is done internally, and that is totally unacceptable.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Mr. Martin, go ahead, please.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Monsieur Picard and Madame Gabriel.

In listening to your report, I was wondering how the Government of Quebec would react if Parliament passed powers for the Auditor General to go into the province of Quebec and audit their books, and not just audit their books, but comment on their processes and their outcomes and their priorities, and really have an effect. Doing so would be seen as a breach of sovereignty. It would be seen as an insult. Does that analogy reflect the thought process that motivates you today?

[Le vice-chef Ghislain Picard]

I certainly would not like to respond on behalf of Quebec, in terms of how they would react. I think the royal commission said it best: the whole notion of the relationship between Canada and aboriginal people has to be reviewed. Here we are in 2006, and we still have a department that has complete responsibility and jurisdiction over peoples. Is this the right era? I find that has to be reviewed. I think the royal commission recommendation was really to the point.

I feel that we also have to review the whole fiscal relationship between Canada and aboriginal people. To me, that may be where the solution lies, in terms of why it is that the whole notion of transfer belongs to Canada and the provinces. We're there, too, and we've been asking that the relationship with Canada be revised and adequately adjusted to who we are, as peoples.

To go back to your question, I think certainly Quebec would find it very unacceptable, so we find it unacceptable to us, as well.

[Ellen Gabriel]

I think that is an excellent analogy. For many, many years, we have been saying that we, as aboriginal nations, have been treated as wards of the state, and we continue to be treated as wards of the state.

The Government of Canada has much to do to improve its relationship with aboriginal people, but, more importantly, to improve its relationship with and treatment of aboriginal women. We find ourselves in situations in which women have been forced to live off reserve, and do not receive program moneys or services. I think there's a long way to go in rectifying the injustices that have been done.

This is perhaps not the right forum for it, but with regard to how moneys are spent on behalf of aboriginal women, I think there needs to be more consultation. As well, as I said, aboriginal women need to be involved in every aspect of decision-making, and have equitable representation. If there is going to be a national aboriginal ombudsperson or auditor, aboriginal women have to be involved in the discussions on what the criteria for that will be, because we are the ones who pass on the language; we are the ones who have kept the culture alive, along with the men; and yet we have been treated as second-class citizens.

Here is a good example: I am not a chief, so my opinion is considered less valuable because I represent aboriginal women; as an aboriginal woman, I don't find that acceptable any more.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you.

Thank you also for raising the issue of consultation. I know Mr. Owen started his first questioning of the AFN representatives with this same question, but if what is happening could be viewed as an infringement upon constitutional rights, or existing aboriginal or treaty rights, the courts have held that sometimes such an infringement might be necessary, but in such a case there has to be justification, and there has to be consultation. And consultation in the truest sense of the word is not just posting on a wall what you're going to do to someone, or telling them, here's what's going to happen to you; consultation is a two-way dialogue where you accommodate some of what's put forward by the other party.

So was there any consultation that you know of in the development of this notion that the Auditor General should have the right to have control over first nations?

[Ellen Gabriel]

Not so far as I am aware of. No, there was no consultation.

[Le vice-chef Ghislain Picard]

None whatsoever for us.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

That's a problem.

I also want to, in the last minute I have, thank you for using your own language in your opening and your ending. The former regional vice-chief from Manitoba, where I'm from, Francis Flett, made a very compelling point one time. He just recently passed away, actually. He said at a House of Commons committee, “Our laws are in our language.” And then he went on to explain: “I don't just mean that our laws are spoken in our language; I mean that our laws are in our language--it makes us who we are.” I think it makes your argument very strong when you bring that cultural benchmark to the presentation that you make.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Mr. Martin.

Mr. Petit.