Speaking Notes
for The Honourable Robert Nault, PC, MP
Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs
at The Pacific Business and Law Institute

April 24, 2003
Ottawa, Ontario

Check against delivery

I want to thank you for inviting me to participate in your deliberations for the second year in a row. It's a very timely conference this year—particularly appropriate as we are witnessing the First Nations governance legislation being given clause-by-clause reading by the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs.

In fact, this is an anniversary of sorts. It is now a little over two years since the consultation process began on the governance legislation. Today I believe it's timely to take a hard look at what I call the myths and realities of the governance legislation in the context of the larger agenda this government has been working out in consultation with boriginal peoples throughout the country for the past several years.

Before I get into those particular issues, I want to recognize in the room a number of Chiefs, and thank them for being here today, and all of you for this continued very important debate.

No matter which side of the fence you may sit on, governance is an important issue for people. And governance and the abilities for governments to do their job really do have an impact. No matter where it's practiced or by whom—Aboriginal or non-Aboriginal in Canada or internationally—good governance is the cornerstone of fair-minded, civilized and progressive societies.

When governance is poorly conducted, or when legislative or institutional barriers prevent the conduct of good governance, it's the people who get left out of the equation, whose voices fall on deaf ears.

Decisions get made for them, leaving them with virtually no opportunity to have a say in things that affect their lives. Power gets exercised by the few for the few. And I think you would agree with me that's not the way things are supposed to be.

One of the reasons I took on the job of Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development was and still remains to make a positive difference to the lives of Aboriginal people. And yes, it's true, it's a difficult portfolio with many difficult days.

But I believe it to be one of the most important portfolios in the government. One of the main reasons why I asked for this job, and one of the main reasons why I think I'm still here, is because I've not asked to be moved, as other Ministers have when they had this portfolio. It would be easier most days to be the Minister of Human Resources or Heritage or some other. But I think this is an important place to be and an important debate to be in.

As a Member of Parliament for the riding with the greatest number of First Nation reserves in the country—51—I came into the job not only with some appreciation of the problems that have been besetting them for the past 127 years, but also with some knowledge of the underlying cause of those problems.

I believe one of the major problems is the Indian Act and the colonial system it has perpetuated. Because of this experience, I was, and still am even more, determined now to move forward with a modern, progressive, enlightened and productive agenda in conjunction with Aboriginal people for Aboriginal people. No one, least of all the people most affected, will thank us for doing nothing or for preserving the status quo, which amounts to very much the same thing.

That is why we're moving forward so aggressively on so many fronts to improve the lives and the place within Canada of Aboriginal peoples—economically, socially and politically.

The First Nation Governance Act is one such example. It is based on a number of principles, including transparency, accountability, and redress. These are hallmarks of democratic governments, ones that we as Canadians all take for granted. First Nations people should have the right to open, transparent government, and that is what the proposed legislation is all about.

It means they will be able to take part in the decisions their governments make that affect their lives and the lives of their families, including how money is spent, and on what priorities they're spent on in their communities.

First Nations will have accountable governments, and the right to know what their government says it is going to do, and what it does. Because First Nation members will know more about how their government is run and the decisions it is making, they will be able to ask informed questions and hold their leaders accountable. First Nation members also will have access to local redress mechanisms so they can challenge decision making made by their band governments, and take them to an impartial body for an investigation.

On that note, I wanted to read something I just got a hold of this morning. I was looking at the clippings, and I got a copy of a clipping from The Winnipeg Free Press, and I want to read it to you. Because this all relates to letters – and I can read this one because it was in the Free Press. But I can tell you as a Minister, I get these kinds of letters almost every single day. And I think it's important for people to recognize why there is a need to move away from the status quo. This is a letter from an individual who says, in response to Matthew Coon Come's letter, ‘Governance Act Attack on Rights,' April 16th.

"The First Nations Governance Act is meant to increase accountability among First Nations in Canada, accountability that has been lacking in a large number of First Nation communities. As our leaders have told us, this will be at the expense of certain treaty rights we now hold that are protected by the Indian Act.

"Until a couple of weeks ago I didn't see the need for the Governance Act in my community. Coming from Osean, a very progressive community, I was proud to say that we have one of the most transparent leadership systems around. We have accomplished a tremendous amount with little resources except ourselves. And I did see the need elsewhere in other communities.

"Two weeks ago, however, a band member wrote a letter to our community paper (that was) critical of our band management strategy as it relates to a certain business. The letter was reasonable, well written, and even included suggested solutions to the problem stated. It was also appropriately titled as being written by a band member, not as a band employee. This band member was fired the same day the letter was published, for insubordination. This band member now has had to look for work outside of the community (as a result of) speaking his mind on an issue he knew something about.

"My opinion on the Governance Act has now changed. As long as there are leaders in our communities who cannot take a little constructive criticism and are threatened to the point that they will fire dissidents, we need an Act that represents the interests of the community members, not the leaders. If the First Nations Governance Act means placing individual human rights over and above treaty rights (and it says, "the right to fire anyone you please for any reason, and the right to set up any form of government you desire") then that's a treaty right I will gladly part with." This (letter) is signed by James Wilson.

I give you this as an example not because I think that we are interested in diminishing treaty rights or that we're interested in moving away from our obligation to Aboriginal people, but I use it as an example of the fact that there are no redress mechanisms. There is no structure of governance tools that we all take for granted when people have issues that they want dealt with in society, whether it's a First Nation society or not.

I use this as an example because I get letters as a Minister like this every day. I can't share them with people because of the Access to Information laws and, of course, of the Privacy Act. But it is an example of some of the concerns that people have.

So I think First Nation members who will have access to a local redress mechanism will be able to challenge decisions made by their band governments and take them to an impartial body for investigation.

I think that's fair. But beyond the provisions that will allow people to have a greater say in their governments, the legislation also provides new powers to Chiefs and Band Councils. They will have clear authority to enter into contracts, buy property, raise money, spend, invest and borrow money—all of which will help economic development in their communities, and raise investor confidence.

This is all about building a First Nation economy. This is all about the quality of life of First Nations people. This is all about the ability as a government to have other-source revenue. This is all about building a third order of government, if you like. Because without investor confidence, without the ability to invest and borrow money, it's pretty difficult to imagine being a constructive government within the constitutional family we find ourselves in.

They will be enabled to develop and maintain a professional public service with separate and distinct responsibilities from the Band Council. They will have expanded law-making powers. This bill will remove Ministerial powers, including the power to disallow band laws. In other words, this bill will actually lessen the Minister's day-to-day influence on local decision making.

This is a very important provision because—as I have said all along in many forums like this and others—as Minister, I should not have the power to disallow laws passed by an elected, fully accountable First Nation council.

It seems to me that these are all reasonable and rational provisions that allow for more effective governance in First Nation communities, both on the part of those who are elected to govern and those who are affected by the decisions of their governments.

I believe deeply and sincerely that if you want to effect positive change in this country you have to work closely with the people and get involved with them particularly at the grassroots level.

There is an abundance of evidence not only that this government has consulted widely and fully with Aboriginal people on a broad range of initiatives, but that we have heard their voices and acted on their advice. We did so with the Species at Risk legislation. We did so in setting up the parameters for the Romanow Commission on health care. We did so in the February federal budget. And we have been doing so with the package of initiatives underway through my Ministry.

Throughout this whole governance exercise, as with any process, myths and realities have often collided between those who are against something and those who are for something.

Nowhere has there been more evidence than over the past couple of years that we have been working to transfer power to the people through the governance legislation. I believe it's important to inform debate, to put a few of those myths out of their misery, by pointing out some observable and inescapable facts. So today I wanted to lay out a few myths for you.

Myth number one: that this legislation is somehow a treaty buster. The fact is that First Nation governance is anything but a treaty buster. In the first place, the Aboriginal and treaty rights of the Aboriginal people of Canada are protected and preserved under the Constitution Act of 1982. And the Specific Claims process we are working on gives further testimony to the fact that we are moving to settle treaties with First Nations as quickly as possible.

Myth number two: nothing less than self-government is acceptable. This is what we hear. We all agree on the need for self-government, but we can work to effect positive change while we are doing so. In fact, the Government of Canada is committed to self-government for Aboriginal peoples, and we have repeatedly said so.

Not only have we said that self-government is a priority; we are acting on our words by moving towards self-government at more than 80 negotiating tables while the governance legislation goes through its paces.

Then there is the governance legislation itself, which takes away powers from the centre and returns them to the communities at the grassroots level. I think most reasonable people would conclude that our overall agenda , coupled with our objectives with the governance legislation in particular, represent important steps en route to self-government.

That's why when you read the legislation, it very specifically says that this is an interim step. And what I have heard, and I think what you all have heard, is that First Nation communities continue to tell us they need to build capacity. They need to improve their tools to move from where they are to where they want to be, which is eventually, obviously, self-government.

So the question really is how do you get there? This piece of legislation presented to you—based on the information we have received from First Nation people themselves—is that step on the road to self-government. So the First Nations Governance Act clearly is not, in my view, a hindrance to self-government for Aboriginal people.

Myth number three: the First Nation governance legislation is another example of colonialism. Nothing could be further from the truth. It's the Indian Act that perpetuates colonialism, not the governance legislation.

The truth is that First Nations Governance Act is a clear attack on colonialism. It is a move to eradicate colonialism by putting power into the hands of First Nation people, not the federal government. It takes a particularly rich imagination and a high disregard for the facts to believe otherwise.

Myth number four: no real consultation has taken place on the Governance Act. The reality is that the First Nations Governance Act has come about as a result of one of the most extensive consultation processes with First Nation people ever undertaken by the government.

The First Nations Governance Act is being brought about by extensive consultation with the people, whereas—and I can't absolutely be certain about this—the Indian Act was imposed on First Nations. Of course, none of us was there at the time—unless there's somebody in this room that's 127 years old.

Again, let's look at the facts. Over the past two years since the governance legislation has been presented for discussion, there have been 135 information sessions that have been conducted across five regions and two territories.

There have been 335 consultation meetings, both on reserve and off reserve; 8465 on-reserve First Nation citizens contacted us, and we heard from almost 4000 living off reserve. We had 465 information sharing sessions being held both on and off reserve.

So, ladies and gentlemen, literally thousands of people have provided their input. Their ideas, their values and their priorities have been reflected in the legislation that was brought before Parliament.

But that's not been the end of it. I also want to point out that the legislation was drafted with the help of an independent group that I commissioned to ensure further fair and open consultation.

You may have heard of the Joint Ministerial Advisory Committee on Governance, which was comprised of ten people with extensive First Nation and government experience. These people were instrumental in drafting the legislation. Many of their clauses—and I repeat many of the clauses and provisions—were directly put into the legislation.

Next in the consultative process has been the bill's examination by the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. Unlike what's happened with most legislation—and I would say 99 percent of the legislation that goes through the House of Commons—we sent this bill to committee before Second Reading.

Those of you who are Parliamentary experts will know what that means. In essence what it means is that it ensures that more people would have greater opportunity to have their say about the draft legislation.

In fact, when you send a bill to Committee after Second Reading—when it's already been agreed in principle—you can't change much of the legislation. You can tinker with it somewhat. But when you send a bill to Committee before Second Reading, you can make fundamental changes to that bill.

And the objective of sending it to Committee that way was to allow a second look by Parliamentarians, a second look by First Nation citizens, both on and off reserve, as to whether, in fact, this consultative process, these drafters, these ten individuals, and myself obviously, whether we had heard and whether we had gotten it right.

And if we had not gotten it right, they did have the opportunity and will continue to have the opportunity to make positive changes to the legislation.

And, of course, as you know, they are now taking those into account in the form of amendments being debated by the Standing Committee as we speak.

Next there will be the hearings of the Senate Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, where further examination by Aboriginal people and others will take place.

So when the bill is passed and then achieves Royal Assent, there will be continuing opportunity for people to have their say as the regulations are drafted. That process will take about a year, and then there will be continuing consultations across the country so that First Nation communities can develop individual codes to account for regional, cultural and traditional differences. Hardly what you'd call a cookie cutter, one-size-fits-all exercise in law making.

My point is that the First Nations Governance Act is among the most broadly consulted and democratically produced exercises in law-making one could wish for. It is the first time in Canadian history that Aboriginal people have had an opportunity to influence the development of legislation and amendments that will change the direction of the Indian Act. Those who claim otherwise, I have to say, are playing fast and loose with the facts, as I believe I have demonstrated. Once again, reality wins over myth.

But that's what happens sometimes when the decibel level rises, and rises to deal with what I've been trying to keep at a very respectful and democratic level. And it reduces informed debate.

And, of course, informed debate becomes the victim when that occurs. That's why I'm speaking to you today, and through you to the silent majority out there. The critics can't have it both ways. They can't truthfully claim that the wide-open door I have offered to them for more than two years has been a barrier to their participation in the process.

They can't truthfully say that the views of the thousands of people we have consulted over the past two years don't matter. That is both wrong and insulting to thousands of Aboriginal people who dared to participate rather than just stand on the sidelines and criticize. They can't manufacture myths that bear no resemblance to reality and expect to get away with it any longer.

I'll leave others to wonder about the motives of the critics. What I do suggest, though, is that it's time for the many voices of reason to be heard. One such voice is that of Dr. Joseph Gosnell, president of the Nisga'a government—and a driving force behind the first modern-day treaty in Canada.

In a speech to the Faculty Club of Harvard University on March 30th he said, "Aboriginal peoples must work to build a better future while they work to secure self-government."

I want to say to you here today that is precisely what we're continuing to do. The governance legislation and the more than 80 self-government negotiations currently underway are proof that we can move forward on both fronts at the same time.

Let there be no mistake: As I've said from the beginning, I am not prepared to stick with the status quo. There's too much at stake for First Nations people to allow the myths to overtake reality, to let inflammatory rhetoric dominate the agenda, or to let the personal attacks obscure the reality.

My commitment is that I remain prepared, as I have been for the past two years, to leave the door wide open for even greater participation through the crucial remaining phases of the legislative process. I would hope that reasonable people want to join me in continuing this discussion.

As I said at the beginning of my remarks, there really is no option called the status quo. There really is no option of leaving the Indian Act in place as we wait for capacity building—as we wait for people to be ready for self-government—because we will then guarantee another generation or more of poverty.

And so your work and mine are very well linked together, very much linked to the point where there is no going back. We need good, progressive legislation to improve the lives of First Nation people in the community.

We need the tools of good governance that every Canadian, especially non-natives, take for granted, and that First Nations people are crying for.

And so with that, Mr. Chairman, I hope I have given enough people enough reason to stay around for a couple of days and be involved in what I think is one of the most important debates we are going to have in my generation.

And that really is the place where Aboriginal people will be in 20 years. And I want to be part of that because, as I said to you, I have a lot at stake. In northern Ontario within ten years, half the population will be Aboriginal. And I go to the 51 First Nations probably more than anybody in this room. I have visited them regularly for 15 years, and I have seen very little progress with the legislative structure we have in place.

We need to do something about it, and we need to do it now. And I want you to do your part in helping us. Thank you very much.

Back to Index Page