Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on April 11th, 2017

[Loretta Burnstick]

Thank you for the question because I do have some suggestions that a number of people have come up with in my community.

Obviously, one of the things, with regards to the Indian Act, is that a lot of people have said to scrap that, which possibly could be a better solution and replace it with something else. At the brainstorming meetings we've had, there have been suggestions of an Auditor General for first nations. Another recommendation is a national hotline to the federal government, where people can call in complaints of corruption or conflict of interest, which is overseen by government and maybe made up of experts and elders. Again, an ethics committee has been suggested at a national level to deal with things like conflict of interest, which are things we all deal with.

Those are some things that we've thought about.... Just to be able to have that dialogue—

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Ms. Burnstick, are you talking about, then, not just at a very local level? Are you also talking about a larger regional nation, for instance perhaps Crees or treaty-level areas?

[Loretta Burnstick]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

I'm sorry, but we are out of time. We are over time actually.

I want to thank you. It's obviously too short. The issue is comprehensive. It has a lot of implications. I want to thank you for coming on the teleconference. We appreciate it. Also, for you who came here to our committee, meegwetch, thank you very much for participating in this discussion.

We're going to take a very short break of maybe one minute and then we will reconvene with our second panel.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

I'm going to ask everyone to take their seats quickly.

We have another robust panel. People want the ability to present. We have a tight timeline, so I'm going to ask everyone to come together as quickly as possible.

Once again, we're on the unceded territory of the Algonquin people. At a time of truth and reconciliation, it's important for us to recognize the special relationship that we have with indigenous people. This committee is continuing its study of default management.

Our second panel consists of the national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, Perry Bellegarde; regional chief, Ghislain Picard, and representative Norm Odjick, from the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador; and Pam Palmater, appearing as an individual.

I want to welcome all of you. You will have 10 minutes to present. After that, we will go into questions.

I'm going to suggest that we start with Pam. You have 10 minutes to present.

[Dr. Pamela D. Palmater, Chair in Indigenous Governance, Department of Politics & Public Administration, Ryerson University, As an Individual]

Thank you.

Kwe, ni'n teluisi Pam Palmater. I am from the sovereign Mi'kmaq nation on the unceded territory of Mi’kma’ki.

I want to thank you all for inviting me to speak to this issue today, and I first want to acknowledge that we're on the unceded territory of the Algonquin nation.

This committee, obviously, is constructed to undertake a review of the purpose, efficacy, and alternatives to the current INAC intervention policy, and while the name has changed, it's still an intervention policy.

From the first nations who have testified so far, I think the fact that they are testifying as survivors of the policy is a telling indication of the severe harms it has committed upon first nations. To this end, my testimony will not repeat some of the concerns made by—but I also support—the testimony of the Algonquins of Barriere Lake, Mathias Colomb Cree Nation, Wasagamack First Nation, the Mattawa First Nations, Swampy Cree Tribal Council first nations, and MKO First Nations.

The first thing I think this committee should respectfully consider is the mandate of Indian Affairs. It seems like something very basic, but it's something by which all INAC policy should be measured against. The mission is to make “a better place” for indigenous peoples, but the mandate is to “improve the social well-being and economic prosperity” of first nations. To this end, Parliament appropriates more than $9 billion every year, with a staff of roughly 5,000, to implement this very basic mandate.

Your question should be, “Is that policy consistent with that mandate?” If you listen to the United Nations, the Auditor General, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and every social research study that's ever been done, the answer would be categorically “no”.

I think it's also prudent for this committee to analyze this policy considering Canada's fiduciary obligations to always act in the best interests of first nations; constitutional obligations to consult, accommodate, and obtain the consent of first nations; the official recognition that was given in 1997 of first nations' inherent right to be self-governing; Canada's domestic and international laws, which prohibit discrimination against first nations and support the right of self-determination of first nations, including the right to manage its own institutions; and Canada's stated commitment to reconciliation, to respect aboriginal and treaty rights, and to renew a nation-to-nation relationship that's not based on the paternalistic controls of the past.

To be specific, here are the problems I have noted with the policy.

First, the policy interferes with the first nations' inherent right to be self-governing. All levels of intervention are directed or mandated by INAC. The policy imposes higher standards on a first nation than is required of other governments, and it's not created in partnership.

Second, there is no legal authority under the Indian Act for the minister to impose a co-manager or third party manager. The policy is not law. It is done under their own discretion, based on their own contractual preferences. This is a major power imbalance, especially considering that many contribution agreements are signed under duress.

Third, this policy does not address the root causes of financial distress and duress: the purposeful and chronic underfunding of essential programs and services, the failure to implement treaty rights, the theft of lands and resources, and the failure to provide sufficient and needs-based funding to develop and maintain governance capacity. That is the root cause of the problem.

Fourth, the policy lacks financial supports to even obtain its own stated objectives to support capacity development. INAC has admitted that it has very little funding to prevent defaults, but it hasn't upgraded band support funding in decades. Regarding the timely remediation of defaults, it has no enforceable exit strategy. Regarding the accountability and transparency of first nations, they are already the most over-reported, overburdened government in the entire world, according to the Auditor General. How much more transparency can this policy require?

Fifth, this policy lacks legitimacy and breaches all principles of administrative fairness and justice. There's no consent from first nations. There's no appeal process. There's no accountability mechanism for INAC. There's no remedy for the harms that are done by a third party manager. The policy has been used for inappropriate political purposes. You just have to look at Mathias Colomb Cree Nation, Attawapiskat, and the Algonquins of Barriere Lake.

INAC forces first nations to pay from their underfunding upward of $600,000 for a third party manager, which it won't give to the first nations to create their own financial staff and office with their own people. If the money is there, it should be used for appropriate purposes.

The policy creates more harm than good. First nations often languish in intervention for many years. They're worse off financially, especially under third party management. Their financial capacity is no better off after third party management. The relationship between INAC and first nations continues to deteriorate. Intervention sends the false and unfactual message of fraud, corruption, and financial mismanagement to community members, making them believe that's the cause of the poverty and not the underfunding, when every statistical report has proven otherwise. It is the rare exception for there to be a situation of wrongdoing, and even less so than in federal and provincial governments, which says something.

In terms of my recommendations, INAC must address the root causes of the alleged defaults, including needs and rights-based program funding, which takes into account non-discrimination, population increases, inflation, and retroactive and prospective costs of staffing, training, and supports, and not just in financial management.

INAC must respect and implement aboriginal and treaty rights, which includes rights-based funding for treaty commitments in education and health, so they are not in financial distress to begin with. This would also include the return of lands and resources, and a constitutional recognition of first nations jurisdiction.

INAC must immediately review all cases of intervention, prioritizing those who are in third party management for reassessment, additional supports, and remedy the severe harms that have been incurred.

The policy itself, should it continue to exist, should substantially be redrafted, in partnership with first nations, as an emergency support policy, and not a political and financial interference policy.

Some of my recommendations for such a policy would be based on core principles, such as that it would be a last resort, exceptional, and in extreme cases only, through volunteer first nation requests for departmental assistance, and would provide accountability and a remedy for breaches and harms caused by INAC and its agents. As well, all costs associated with emergency or exceptional support be borne by INAC as an incentive to make it short term. It should be done on a human rights framework, including indigenous-specific rights, and there must be a formal appeal and review process for any exceptional support cases, including adequate funding and legal supports for first nations to defend themselves, especially in cases of political interference.

We must also review all supports currently provided to so-called first nations financial institutions and crown corporations involved in first nations finances. First nations governance at the first nations level must be the priority, with supports for aggregates when requested. INAC's paternalistic and unconstitutional intervention policy must not be handed over to a first nations institute to do the exact same thing.

In conclusion, you will see consistent messages from the first nations witnesses to address the root causes of the alleged defaults, one of which is chronic underfunding. The INAC director said, “I totally concur with you that the implementation of the policy doesn't mean much for certain first nations if there's not overall adequate funding.”

First nations have also testified about the abuse of power and political interference by INAC staff in first nations. Testifying as survivors is very telling of the toll that it takes, and languishing in third party management for years while finances deteriorate is not in line with anyone's concept of accountability, especially on INAC's part.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Thank you very much.

We're now going to move to Chief Picard from Quebec.

[Chief Ghislain Picard, Regional Chief, Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador]

[Witness speaks in the Innu language]

Good morning, everyone, Madam Chair and members of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs.

I will be very brief, because I would especially like to allow my colleague here with me to describe in much more detail the study being carried out right now.

My thanks to the committee for proceeding with the review of a truly archaic and outdated policy, as undoubtedly are most policies for which the Indigenous and Northern Affairs Department, the federal government, is responsible.

I could probably say that I have personally spent a lot of energy and effort—not more than anyone else, but at least more than most—over the years to come and testify before the various committees, without a lot of results, unfortunately. I still hesitate when I decide to participate in so-called democratic exercises that finally allow us to express our concerns about the nation-to-nation as well as government-to-government relationship, between our own institutions and the federal government. That specifically pertains to the current review of the default prevention and management policy.

Clearly, in our view, we have been talking for years about the anomalies in applying the policy. Unfortunately, the only legacy we have is our own echoes of the concerns we express. To that end, I would say that, nationally, although the percentage of communities in a situation with a third-party manager is very low, the fact remains that a significant number of communities—there are some in our own region, for instance—are close to the intervention threshold. This is still very worrisome and the situations are ultimately still at the mercy of the head office of Indigenous and Northern Affairs.

A little earlier, we talked about the situation in Lac-Barrière, which is a telling example of the issue. Already in 2015, the community of Lac-Barrière was seeking the support of the Assembly of First Nations at the national level to engage in what could be a much more constructive process with the federal government. That being said, I am here to support our colleagues from Lac-Barrière of course.

On that note, I will end my remarks, because I think that it's also important for us to be present and to support our colleagues who are daily on the front lines to ensure the sound management of the communities' affairs and the proper support of administrations, both local and regional.

I will now give the floor to my colleague Norm Odjick, who has vast experience and will certainly be able to elaborate even further on the policy being studied today.

Thank you.

[Norm Odjick, Representative, Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador]

Good morning, Madam Chair, and members of the committee. I'm honoured to be here today to speak about this very important issue.

I am Anishinabe, from the community of Kitigan Zibi, and the director of the Algonquin Anishinabeg Nation Tribal Council. I have over 16 years' experience in upper management at both the community and tribal council level. In this time, I have learned how communities end up in financial difficulty and how hard it is for them to get out of it. I'd like to give you my point of view on where the problems arise from and how we, as the directors of Quebec, would like to see things improve. I have always felt that just talking about problems without offering solutions is not productive, so I'd like to give you our suggestions on how we see things can be fixed.

If I were to briefly summarize the main root causes of what places first nations communities in difficulty, I'd state that they are mainly underfunding, shortfalls in capacity, lack of flexibility in the funding agreements, and administrative burdens.

In January, the Quebec directors were consulted regarding the new financial arrangements with government, including default prevention and management, and the root causes were repeated in all of these sessions. In Quebec this is a troubling issue, because in the past there were only a handful of communities that were in difficulty, and now about half of them are receiving some kind of intervention. We've heard repeatedly that the communities are underfunded, and this is a reality. The cuts made to band support funding and other programs, along with increasingly restrictive funding agreements, set into motion a chain of events that led us down this path. There are numerous examples of how communities are underfunded. I'd like to offer one glaring example.

Our communities are told that they're funded for the maintenance of their infrastructure at 80% of the cost. Where the other 20% is to come from we don't know. Our engineer at the tribal council conducted a study and found that in reality, the communities on average were being funded at only 50% of the true cost. This leads to infrastructure, such as roads and buildings, needing to be replaced before its life expectancy is up, or funds earmarked for other programs being diverted there, if they are able to be. Again, this is only one example.

With regard to capacity, it's hard for our communities to recruit and retain qualified personnel, especially in senior positions. One of my member communities, which is well-organized and not isolated, has been looking for a director of finance for about two years. In Quebec we have biannual meetings of the Quebec directors, and we see constant change, sometimes with as many as six new DGs within a six-month period.

The funding for the professional and institutional development program is limited and restricted to communities already in financial difficulty. The tribal council program was gutted in 2013, and it has severely limited our ability to assist our member communities. As a result of these cuts to the tribal councils, we have to wear so many hats that at times it's difficult to walk through the door.

There was talk about lifting the 2% cap on funding. Tribal councils receive no indexation on an annual basis, let alone the 2%. Our purchasing power is diminished on an annual basis, yet we're asked and expected to do more and more. Our communities need more support, but it's a real struggle to give them all that they need.

Under previous funding arrangements there was much more flexibility on how money could be spent. Now so much of these funds is delivered under secondary or targeted budgets, which can only be used for one specific purpose. This matters, because a budget is a budget. It doesn't matter if it's your household budget or a community's annual budget, you need flexibility in order to cover areas that need a supplement or to cover unforeseen expenses. Say, for example, in your household budget you have funds targeted for clothing, but your furnace is breaking down. If you can't divert some of that clothing budget for the furnace repairs, what happens? Eventually it breaks, your pipes freeze and burst, and you have water damage in your home. This is what our first nations administrators face in their communities with these budgets and restraints. The lack of flexibility causes a snowball effect that causes all kinds of different problems.

Finally, with regard to the administrative burden, it mainly relates to two issues: funding applications and reports. First nations administrators spend an extraordinarily huge portion of their time filling in applications year after year. In addition to the time lost filling in applications, this type of competitive approach is a further disadvantage to the communities that are already in difficulty and those with capacity issues.

I'll skip ahead to the solutions.

First, properly fund communities and tribal councils. Look at the areas causing first nations to struggle and properly fund them. With regard to tribal councils, in 2008 there was a comprehensive national study produced by the department in collaboration with tribal councils when the tribal council program was being renewed by Treasury Board. The findings of this report should be used as a basis for examining the program. It showed the important role tribal councils play in proper functioning for their member communities, the funding gap they face, and how the program could be improved. By bolstering tribal councils, you can help bridge capacity gaps within communities.

Second, allow first nations flexibility to set their own priorities and allocate the funding where they feel it is needed.

Third, remove the competitive nature of funding applications for programs that support capacity building. Consider flowing funds through tribal council such as for a professional institutional development program so all communities can benefit regardless of their situation. This helps those already in trouble and prevents others from slipping.

Fourth, wherever possible, provide funding in the form of grants. This is more in line with the concept of dealing with each other on a nation-to-nation basis and will help alleviate the administrative burden.

In conclusion, I'd like to share with you an idea that the Quebec directors have had for a number of years. We feel that instead of third party managers, ideally there should be a team of first nations administrators who assist communities directly and whose employment is not contingent on the clientele being in financial difficulty.

For the 2017-18 fiscal year my tribal council, along with the tribal council of Mamuitun and Mamit Innuat, have submitted a pilot project to work with three communities in difficulty. We want to hire resources to examine specifically why those communities are in trouble, and to make an action plan to remedy the situation, and then to commence with coaching them. We're hoping that even within this short time frame we can demonstrate the benefits of this approach. Our hope is that when it's shown to be effective, we can work with the department to ensure that each tribal council has one such resource to help each community.

Meegwetch.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Thank you.

Now we will move to the national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, Perry Bellegarde.

[National Chief Perry Bellegarde, National Chief, Assembly of First Nations]

Good morning. Thank you, Madam Chair.

[Witness speaks in Cree]

Pam, Ghislain, Norm, those were very good presentations.

Just very quickly, Madam Chair, good morning to you all, friends and relatives. I give thanks to the Creator for this day and my colleagues who presented. I also want to acknowledge the Algonquin nation unceded territory we're on.

All the numerous presentations that you've heard spoke to the need for proper fiscal funding to be in place. They spoke to the need for adequate capacity in first nation communities, territories, and nations. As well, in particular, the Algonquins of Barriere Lake, I told them I acknowledge them and lift them up for their presentation because we support that through a national resolution as well.

Regarding this default prevention management policy on first nations, we say it's inappropriate and punitive, but what needs to be done to change it? Basically, it has to be discarded, and/or amended, or put to the side. We talk about this vestige of colonialism that does little to prevent or manage default. It treats first nations as service providers for the federal government rather than as governments in their own right. It's designed to address risk to the department rather than improve performance on the ground. That's the issue. It does little to help first nations to increase capacity to get out from under the policy.

There are four triggers, and I'm sure you probably know these. You've heard numerous presentations, so I won't have to read it because it's probably boring. I hate boring presentations. I hate reading.

But you have the four risks, you know them, the four triggers. There are situations where a first nation is punished rather than protected by the intervention policy, and here are some examples. The first is flooding. When a first nation is flooded, what happens? They have to look at other sources of revenue internally to deal with the flooding. They don't get any money for flooding or emergency management. They look elsewhere to deal with that need, that issue. The policy does more harm than good because they get penalized for trying to meet the needs of their people.

There's also a perceived risk to program delivery, and this has the minister substitute his or her judgment for that first nation's. Basically the communities know best. We have 5,000 bureaucrats. No disrespect to those good first nations people who are there trying to make change within the department, but that's a lot of bureaucrats within INAC. There have to be more effective and efficient ways. Nobody in Ottawa should be dictating what goes on in the community. The community members know best. That's my point on this line here.

No disrespect to my good staff writers, but I'm just cutting to the chase. It should be the people in the community who making the decisions, not some bureaucrat in Ottawa or regional Indian Affairs.

Because there is a huge socio-economic gap that has existed and has persisted for decades, it's a clear example, again, that the policy has failed miserably. It's not serving the people, nor is it supporting good governance. It's doing more harm than good. What do you do to change it? What do we do? What are the steps, the processes, step by step by step, to change it?

The majority of the time when an audit cannot provide a positive opinion, it's not because of malfeasance. Usually, it's because of a lack of capacity. I've been a chief at Black Bear. We used to get a $180,000 for band support funding a year. You have to pay your chief and council salary. You have to pay your operations, maintenance, and administration. Do you think you're going to get a chartered accountant or a CMA to come in for $30,000 to $40,000 a year? Because that's all that's left. There's a capacity issue. That's the issue.

I wish every 634 first nations across Canada had a chartered accountant or a CMA on staff. They don't have that ability to hire. A lot of time they take from own-source revenue to supplement that. The issue is capacity, lack of capacity. A lot of times, again, lack of proper record keeping is a capacity issue as are training and development. Getting capacity in place is the big point.

Again, band support funding.... I lobbied hard. Do you want to have 634 happy first nations chiefs? You increase your band support funding, you increase your O and M, and you increase your minor capital, the three programs within INAC that have not increased. I know there's $8.4 billion, and now $3.4 billion. That's good. It's moving in the right direction, but there's a huge gap that exists built up over the past 25 years. That's what we have to start closing. Band support funding is really the issue.

Then it's ironic, though, that when you go into third party management.... We were in third party management in my reserve when I took over. I got out of third party management in eight months. You can do it, but you have to make tough decisions. What upsets leadership at the band level is that Indian Affairs will make the decision to pay a third party manager thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars taken from their own band support funding.

There's no incentive for the third party managers to put in capacity because that's their bread and butter. Who the heck wants to get out of third party? I'm a third party manager, and so many companies have been set up across Canada now to provide these financial management services. There's no incentive for them to train and have capacity at the band level, because that's their bread and butter. It's a cycle, so it's about interrupting that cycle. It's about issues of capacity.

An agreement comes out of INAC, bless their souls, in February or March and it's all one-sided. There's no discussion. There's no dialogue. There's no back and forth. It's dictated: here, you sign this, and if you don't sign it, there's no money flowing on April 1. Well, that's a poor, crappy system. It's a “take it or leave it” proposition.

The choice of “leave it” would mean the appointment of a third party manager. It would mean that no services or programs get delivered in the first nation. It's terrible. Again, it seems to have more to do with controlling first nations than preventing or managing default. In place of the default prevention and management policy, I suggest that support for financial literacy, for administrative and management capacity, and for first nations institutions to assist with building financial capacity is where you have to focus energy and efforts.

In addition, the existing accountability relationship must be flipped on its head.

Cathy, we love accountability and transparency. Are you going to come out with the financial transparency and accountability act? I know that's there.

We have 634 first nations across Canada, and on every reserve you have the ones who support the chief and council, and the ones who don't support the chief and council. When you have one individual coming and they're going to slam and try to paint a picture of all chiefs and councils as crooked and corrupt, that's not the case in the vast majority of them. We have to flip it on its head to be accountable to the citizens of that first nation, first and foremost. That's how it has to be flipped around, not accountable to the government first, but accountable, first and foremost, to the citizens of that first nation.

I totally support transparency and accountability, and it has to be there. If my mom's watching this, she'll say “yes”, because she knows what it's like at the rez. She wants transparency and accountability. She's 80 years old and she'll tell me if I'm saying something wrong. She wants to make sure those resources are utilized in an effective and efficient way for everyone but with results achieved on the ground.

The point we're making is that first nations in Canada should answer to citizens first and re-establish a true government-to-government relationship. The existing policies do not reflect a government-to-government relationship, and they must be discarded and replaced, no question. We are trying to work on that with this comprehensive law and policy review. We have a process in place, but it takes time.

Basically, the citizens and the first nations know what the needs of the citizens are, and we have to respect that and incorporate that in. We have a new fiscal relationship. In fact, we're meeting this week. We're looking at presentations to our chiefs-in-assembly in December with options. We've always talked about, as the Prime Minister said, moving to a long-term, sustainable, predictable funding relationship with the crown, based on needs.

What does that look like? We're saying the work we're doing at that fiscal table is ongoing, but it should not be used as an excuse to not move ahead where opportunities arise for first nations. I don't want to hear, “Oh, it's all done at the national AFN fiscal table.” No, don't say that, don't do that, don't support that. Move on things that can happen in the community and the regions right now. This ongoing work with the MOU is going to take some time.

Basically, there are four points or examples that can happen now. First, fully implement the appendix K to the Treasury Board directive. Do you know what that is? It's so you can carry over from one fiscal year to the next and forget March madness. You know what happens. We have monies that we have to spend before the end of March or we lose them. It's crazy. Put that aside so you can carry over from one fiscal year to the next. Government departments can do it. First nations should be able to do it so there are no crazy decisions made at the end of March. I'm saying, no more March madness.

Second, the time limited authorities ending in 2017-18 should be extended to allow ongoing projects to be concluded.

Third, Canada should act on its commitment to the nation-to-nation relationship and to rights recognition by being responsive to the request of individual first nations seeking changes in mentality and policy now. First nations cannot afford to wait. The process of change must begin to be implemented, and change must be implemented with first nations, not for first nations but implemented with us.

Own-source revenue is another issue that should be put on the shelf and not be used to penalize bands that have monies coming in.

Again, we need a new fiscal relationship with the crown, based on total population, based on needs, keeping up with inflation, treaty-based, and a percentage of GDP going directly to first nations because the original lands and resources are ours.

That's it. Thank you for listening.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Meegwetch. That's good.

For the first round of questions, we'll go to MP Anandasangaree.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you all for coming.

Chief, I think this is your fourth visit to our committee and I thank you for your continued engagement and information.

I have a couple of questions. Professor, you spoke about replacing the policy with a temporary emergency support policy of sorts. How do you envision that playing out in terms of the role, the timeline, and the desired outcomes? Could you elaborate a little on your expectations with regard to that?

[Dr. Pamela D. Palmater]

Think about flooding, as an example. It's a temporary hopefully short-term emergency in which you need extra resources and extra support. Sometimes first nations can do it themselves if they have their own support, and sometimes they might need emergency management folks to come in to help.

It's the same thing in this situation. If a first nation determines for itself that programs and services are at risk—not a political decision made by a funding service officer because he or she doesn't get along with the first nation but an actual risk—and it's something that the first nation can't deal with itself, or deal with through the tribal council or regional organization, or it can't hire outside people to help and it actually needs INAC intervention or emergency supports, then that would be the trigger. It wouldn't be INAC deciding, first and foremost, what has to happen and then limiting all the options and directing what happens. It would be a voluntary trigger.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Thank you.

With respect to the financial transparency act, I know it's come up with our previous panel, and I know you brought it up, Chief. Can you elaborate on the effects it has had on the communities, and what, if any, benefit it has had on the lives of our population in the communities?

[National Chief Perry Bellegarde]

The FNFTA is going to be part of the comprehensive federal law and policy review that's on. That's one of the laws that are not consistent with the nation-to-nation approach.

We say that we're accountable. Chiefs and councils are audited already. Those audits are available. They have to be presented, in a lot of cases, to their first nation citizens on a regular basis.

It's almost as though if it's not accountable at Little Black Bear, what do I do as an individual citizen? We have an election every three years, so I'm going to back and make it an issue. If Chief Cathy McLeod is not being accountable, then I'm going to hold her to account. There are politics on every reserve—that's how it is.

I say that rather than having an imposed piece of legislation, whether it be federal or provincial, a lot of first nations are starting to be proactive in developing their own financial transparency act, setting up their own treasury board, setting their own financial.... The problem is that you have 634. Some are really advanced; others aren't. Focus on the ones that aren't and start looking at capacity for those ones, because there are good tools and processes and mechanisms in place across Canada. Look at those good examples. How can they be replicated?

You have 58 different nations. The Cree are different from the Mi'kmaq, from the Dene, from the Haida. They're all different. Some have a treaty relationship with the crown or federal fiduciary trust obligations, but it's the Indian Act that governs all 634, unless you have a separate piece of legislation and you're out of it. We all want to get out of it, no question. It's going to take some time.

We're even looking at developing our own institutions. You have the Auditor General of Canada, and you've seen those reports and how they point to the need to revamp the department at INAC, no question. What about establishing our own auditor general so that we have our own institutions in place that can help support accountability, transparency, but under first nations' jurisdiction?

That's it.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Chief, if you want to add to that as well, have you seen any difference in the lives of people in the 634 communities since the financial transparency act has come into place? Has it improved the lives? Has it been a distraction? How has it impacted the communities you work with?

[Chief Ghislain Picard]

To add to what the national chief said earlier, I would say that the depth and breadth of the issue are greater than that. It directly affects the government-to-government relationship beyond the nation-to-nation relationship.

In reality, on the ground, it is more of a parent-child relationship, the children being the communities we are representing. That may influence the popular opinion in our communities. The people in our communities tend to see their leaders or band council as being entirely dependent on the federal government. That's what needs to be changed. The relationship is clearly and completely dysfunctional. That's why we are trying to find effective ways to mobilize our communities so that we can have the same status as the one in the political speeches, which is far from being the case right now.

After my flying visit in Ottawa, I am going back to Montreal to meet with the administration of a federal department. Our managers spend a lot of time preparing reports on the number of coffees they drink per day instead of taking the time they need to reach their targets, which is completely unacceptable. There are many examples and I could spend the entire day listing them.

Ultimately, it is extremely important for the communities that the relationship between the federal government and first nations can be an example of success. Otherwise, the credibility of our own institutions will be undermined. I agree with the national chief's comments just now. Our reality is not any different from Canadian society overall. We must also look at the situation from that perspective as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Thank you.

The questioning now goes to MP Yurdiga.

[David Yurdiga, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good morning. I'd like to thank the witnesses for participating in our study, which is a very important study.

Often, we look at first nations governments under third party management and we see it as a mismanagement issue. If we look really closely, we'll see that, in many cases, it's not really a mismanagement issue. It's a revenue issue. I had an opportunity to visit many first nations communities. You look at their infrastructure failing. The cost on first nations to do things, especially the isolated communities, is three times more. There is a gap there in funding to be able to sustain what they have. That really troubles me.

If we look at revenue and the abilities of federal, provincial, and municipal governments, we see that they have the ability to tax. They get linear assessment from pipelines and everything else, and if they need more revenue, they have the ability to raise taxes. I believe first nations do not have that capacity to increase their revenue.

I think the real question is, what can we do to raise revenue in first nations communities? I'd like to open up that question to all our witnesses.

[National Chief Perry Bellegarde]

That's a good question, David. That's one of the things we're dialoguing about with regard to this new fiscal relationship with the crown.

As first nations people, each of us has ancestral lands, even treaty territories. For example, I'm from Treaty 4 territory. About 13 years ago, one pipeline was going across and we put a Treaty 4 tax in place. That pipeline had to pay to all 34 first nations that signed Treaty 4 $100,000 just for coming through Treaty 4 territory. I always called it “hush up and go away” money because we had a little bit of a slowdown of traffic on Highway 1. I was riding my old sway-back pinto there, slowing down traffic just to get attention to the issue that there should be an aboriginal tax for any industry to operate on our ancestral lands and our territories. That's a way of raising revenue.

Again, when you start talking about the economy, the GDP, and everything else, how else is it all raised? It's from the land and resource wealth of this great country, from Canada. From an indigenous person's perspective, how did the crown gain title? I'm starting to use the words “assumed crown sovereignty” and “assumed crown jurisdiction” because the concept of terra nullius, the doctrine of discovery...our legal rights as doctrine.

Having the ability to tax any company or business operating within our ancestral lands or our territories is one way of generating revenue.

On reserve.... The misnomer is that Indians don't pay tax. It's a misnomer. We pay every tax there is. There is only one that we don't pay because of section 87 of the Indian Act: personal property income situated on reserve. That's the only one. We pay GST. We pay PST. If you own a home, you pay taxes.

That would be one way of generating revenue, giving first nations the ability to tax any company or industry operating on their ancestral lands, throughout their treaty lands. That would be my answer to that. As well, own-source revenue is another way of generating revenue. Again, that's a whole separate item unto itself—that when businesses are successful they supplement. Even from my own little gas bar, my Tim Hortons gas bar at Little Black Bear in Fort Qu'Appelle, we used to supplement our post-secondary students support program. Our position at Black Bear was that anybody from Black Bear who wants to go to university is going to go to university, but the cap on post-secondary was there.

We supplemented that program from our own-source revenue because there's no better way out of poverty than a good education. That's one example.

Own-source revenue is another way, yes, but that's up to each individual first nation. I think, globally and on ancestral lands in treaty territories, having the ability to tax an industry operating there is the answer.

[David Yurdiga, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

I'd like to hear from other witnesses on that topic.

[Chief Ghislain Picard]

To be very brief, lands, access to lands, that's really what it's all about. I totally agree with the national chief. The fact that we don't have the capacity to generate our own revenue and are not in a position to start our own projects limits us to having deals with companies. It's totally unfair, and it certainly lowers the capacity of our peoples to have their own initiatives and to be in a position to fund them. That's one of the problems.

If you limit yourself to the Indian Act, the total land mass of the reserves in Canada is less than 1%. It's obvious to me where there needs to be some improvement.

[Dr. Pamela D. Palmater]

First of all, all the funding that comes from the federal government is own-source revenue. All of the money that's in Canada comes from our lands and resources, so we're just talking about “let us control our own money”.

Second, there's no reason why first nations couldn't be receiving a portion of all federal, provincial, and municipal taxes that happen on our traditional territories. We should be getting a royalty from all the business that's conducted on every highway, water, and land area in this territory that has only been possible through the dispossession of our lands and territories.

[Norm Odjick]

When I did my master's courses, we looked at this. One idea I had at that time was a kind of surcharge for all visitors coming into Canada either by commercial air, by bus, or by boat. Let's say it was even $10 or $20 per head. Millions of visitors come in. We could easily generate tens of millions of dollars that way, and it wouldn't cost Canadian taxpayers a cent.