Thank you, Peter, and good morning, everyone.

Let me begin by thanking the Pacific Business & Law Institute for organizing such an important conference. In looking over your program and list of speakers, I think you have covered almost every aspect of the Indian Act - its history and intent, its limitations and the imperatives for changing it.

Any discussion about the Indian Act should to be informed by facts and hard information and so I applaud your efforts and congratulate you on this initiative.

Let me also say how much I appreciated what Chief Coon Come had to say at the outset.
I have read his comments with interest, and while clearly there are areas where we differ, I also see tremendous areas of common purpose and common determination.

And no one should be surprised that First Nations and their leaders and the Government of Canada continue to express a variety of opinions. After all, I can remember some difficult debates in non-Aboriginal communities, and I am sure you can remember a few yourselves. What is surprising is that anyone is surprised by the debate. That being said, what is worth doing is often difficult, but through these difficulties, we learn.

I was struck by the title you have chosen for this conference, "Beyond the Indian Act," because it seems to me that if there is something we can all agree on it's the need to push past the confines and constraints of this Act.

In fact, no one would be happier than I would be if tomorrow every First Nation in Canada signed self-government agreements that would allow us to relegate the Indian Act to the dustbin—a relic of an earlier time and outdated ideas.

But wishing won't make it so. We can't afford to wait another 60 years for such agreements to be negotiated or for new treaties to be worked out.

We can't wait—and the younger generation of First Nations peoples will not wait—for inherent rights to mean more than words on a page.

That's why it is so important to deal with practical, bread-and-butter issues today.

Yes, we must address issues that lie outside of the Indian Act—such as fiscal institutions, economic development, treaty-making and land management. And I'll have more to say about all of these in just a moment.

But it's also important to deal with the Indian Act—at the very least to remove the impediments to progress that it represents.

That is why we are moving forward with what has come to be known as the First Nations Governance Initiative, which will supply the tools missing from the Indian Act and pave the way for greater self-reliance, economic development and hope among First Nations' communities.

Now, yesterday and today you have heard about the paternalism of this Act, about its outdated attitudes and unequal distribution of powers.

The fact is that this Act never contemplated the day when First Nations would stand as full partners in our society, when they would take their rightful place and play their full part in the life of this country. The Act itself is clear on this.

For all practical purposes, Chief and Council were powerless, with all of the authority left in the hands of the Minister of Indian Affairs. The Act makes 120 references to how "the Minister may" do this or that, but only three references to how "the band may."

And in those areas where bands could act, they were responsible to the federal government, not to their membership directly.

The Indian Act took away traditional systems of Aboriginal government and replaced them with one alien to their culture.

And because it was premised on the assumption that First Nations would gradually be absorbed into the larger Canadian society, the Act was silent on many key areas.

These include how band councils would deal with the businesses of their communities and how First Nations would exercise control over their Band leadership: in other words, over issues of governance.

This absence of any reference to governance, or to the institutions of government, is not just of theoretical or intellectual interest.

It is not just some historical omission; it is a modern-day roadblock to economic development, to self-reliance and to self-government.

This isn't just my opinion or the opinion of the Government of Canada—it is the opinion of First Nations themselves.

In a recent EKOS poll of First Nations, 71 percent of respondents agreed that providing the tools for good governance will improve conditions for economic and social development.
And 68 percent agree that conditions for economic and social development will be improved by strengthening the accountability of First Nations leaders.

This is only common sense. Businesses will not invest on reserves, for example, unless they believe that there is an effective administrative regime.

And there is increasing evidence—both academic and empirical—that suggests that the ability to pursue economic development, to create healthy communities with adequate infrastructure, and to develop the skills and potential of people, all depend on good governance.

First Nations' peoples understand this connection between effective governance and economic progress. They understand that leaving the Indian Act as it is means leaving First Nations without the tools they need to make the progress they want.

More, they want a direct say in how the Indian Act is changed. Fully 67 percent said ordinary First Nations' members should have a voice.

I couldn't agree more. That's why we went out into the communities to hear directly from the people, holding more than 450 consultation sessions, with more than 200 First Nations communities. That's why we established a 1-800 number, created a website and prepared a questionnaire soliciting input. All told, more than 10,000 First Nation people took advantage of these opportunities and expressed their views.

We also sought the participation of the chiefs, both individually and through their affiliation with the Assembly of First Nations. We have kept the chiefs informed as to what First Nations people have told us and have repeatedly invited chiefs from across the country to participate. That a few have decided not to is their right. But, and I repeat, it is not our choice.

To get as much input as possible, a joint ministerial advisory committee was established. It was made up of representatives from the Congress of Aboriginal People, the National Aboriginal Women's Association and leading lights from the communities themselves. And a seat was held for representatives from the AFN had they chosen to participate.

And so it is difficult to understand the argument that this process – composed of First Nations people, their leaders – has been unilateral or directed from Ottawa. Quite the opposite, it has reflected the aspirations of First Nations people themselves. It is highly democratic and it has engaged most directly those who will be affected most directly.

Now some have advised us to simply "set aside" the Indian Act and focus exclusively on implementing treaty rights. And there is no doubt that moving forward on treaties is important—and we are doing so.

But this is not an either-or proposition. We can and we must do both. Indeed, the governance initiative is not intended to replace treaty negotiations, nor to implement self-government under the inherent right policy.
What it will do is provide First Nations operating under the Indian Act with the tools they need to foster effective, responsible and accountable governance.

And let's take a closer look at just what "setting aside" the Indian Act would mean in real terms.

It would mean perpetuating the vacuum of governing structures in the Act. In other words, we would continue with a system under which there is no requirement for a band council to have an annual budget; no requirement for conflict-of-interest guidelines; no provision making First Nations legal entities and, therefore, unable to borrow money on better terms.

It would mean leaving in place a system in which there are no rules protecting band public servants, who can be hired and fired at the whim of each incoming council.

It would mean perpetuating a system with no redress for anyone who disagrees with a band council's decision, other than by going to court.

It would mean continuing to deny First Nations the tools they themselves have said are necessary to make real progress. And it would mean leaving in place all of the uncertainty about status and rights that drive away investment and jobs.

Some might argue that we should simply implement Section 35 of the Constitution and Inherent Right Policy. As I said earlier, we are moving forward on this front, but anyone who has spent five minutes at the negotiating table knows that Section 35 and the Indian Act are not like a light switch. You cannot simply turn them on or off at will. They take time and negotiation.

To wait and twiddle our thumbs while this is going on would be to allow another generation to struggle. Personally, I could not look any of the people who lived on the reserves in my own riding in the eye if this were the government's policy. I am not sure any other responsible leader could either. Sixty more years of transition is not acceptable for the next generation.

The fact is we can't set aside the Indian Act because we can't afford to leave in place an Act which, in the words of Chief Austin Bear of the Muskoday First Nation, "has shackled our people for a generation." And which has "caused our community to miss major economic development opportunities."

We can't afford to leave in place an Act which Chief Joe Miskokomon of the Chippewa Thames First Nation says is "outdated (in terms of) enabling us to develop our own governance and our governments."

There are some Aboriginal leaders who have suggested that we fight it out in the courts, and perhaps they were encouraged by recent decisions from the Supreme Court.

And you'd find a few non-Aboriginal leaders who might agree, but they would be encouraged by decisions like the Mitchell case.

But let's think about that for a moment. Consider the millions of dollars spent by both sides and the Canadian taxpayers – many of whom are Aboriginal.

Consider the time and effort both sides have put into developing and researching their cases.

And consider that every dollar spent on researchers, witnesses, judges and court rooms is one dollar less spent on housing, health, and economic development. And consider that there are already over 200 cases challenging the Act.

To ignore these facts – and refuse to consult and change – is to argue, quite crudely, that lawyers and judges know more about what First Nations need than First Nations people themselves. I've learned from representing 51 First Nations in my own riding for over 14 years, from working in the communities, that this would be a big mistake.

And that is why I agree with some chiefs who have said, and I quote, "I am not afraid of this process. I invite it."

The First Nations Governance Initiative is not an end, but a bridge. A bridge from ‘the old' to ‘the new'—between a time when First Nations were put in their place and a modern time when they take their rightful place. It is a bridge to a future where communities operate under a system of government created for First Nations, by First Nations.

A future where leaders are less accountable to Ottawa and more accountable to their own communities. A future where First Nation communities are more self-reliant and self-sufficient. A future where communities offer the stability that will lead to economic development, dignity and hope.

Is it the whole answer? Of course not. And it does not constitute the sum total of our initiatives.

So let me now move beyond the Indian Act and look very briefly at three other areas, three other tools, that we are developing in partnership with First Nations.

The first is the development of stronger and better defined fiscal powers. In others words, enhancing the abilities of First Nations to raise monies either directly, from members of their communities, or from outside financial institutions.

Former Chief Manny Jules from Kamloops has been a driving force behind this initiative and I want to publicly acknowledge—and thank him for—his wise leadership.

In order to strengthen the fiscal capacity of First Nations, four arm's-length instruments are contemplated:

• A First Nations' Tax Commission to provide for alternative sources of revenue;
• A First Nations Finance Authority, to clarify borrowing authority;
• A First Nations Financial Management Board, to provide independent accountability mechanisms and services that other governments take for granted; and
• A First Nations Statistical Institute to provide reliable data on things like population and economic growth.

Now, the names and technicalities of these various instruments are not as important as the goals they support and the ends they serve.

They are powers that every level of government in Canada takes for granted because they are so basic to success. They help to build businesses, roads, houses—the key ingredients to success, to meeting those "bread and butter issues."

They are aimed at filling gaps in the current powers and structures of First Nation communities—gaps that must be filled if they are to become truly self-sufficient.

Taken together, these initiatives will provide the stature, stability and credibility essential for strong fiscal management. They will provide a solid foundation for investor confidence, ensure the security of data and return powers back to First Nations themselves.

First Nations communities will be able to finance their own development through instruments like bonds, have greater access to private capital and become a more attractive environment for investment because strong management and accountability policies will be in place.

For First Nations people on reserve, this means that decisions about where the money comes from and how it is spent will be made in community, and by the community. In other words, it is real self-determination.

In order to seize control of their own economic future, First Nations do not need to have their hands held, but they cannot be expected to succeed with their hands tied. These initiatives in the area of fiscal management are aimed at untying those hands.

Second, we need to address the issue of land claims, because the most sophisticated governance structures, with the best fiscal management, won't impress investors if ownership of the land itself is in dispute.

It is essential that we have a specific claims process that is fair, fast and efficient. The current system, as I'm sure you all know, is none of these.

It is not seen as fair because the Government of Canada itself determines which First Nations' claims will be accepted for adjudication. In other words, before a claim can go forward, one of the parties to the dispute has a right of veto.

Nor is the present claims system fast or efficient. Claims drag on far too long and cost far too much. The whole process is adversarial and too many claims end up in court.

We are proposing an independent claims body to replace the current Specific Claims Commission. This body would have two components—a Commission to facilitate negotiations and a Tribunal to resolve disputes.

This system would expedite disputes and save money. It would also emphasize that both the Government of Canada and First Nations would rather negotiate than litigate. And it would allow us to quickly resolve a number of historic grievances.

By settling these claims we would remove an enormous roadblock to economic development. Investors could proceed with confidence and First Nations could negotiate from positions of strength.

Third, we need to not only establish ownership over the land, but provide greater freedom for First Nations to manage it.

In 1999, the First Nations Land Management Act was passed. It was designed to allow certain First Nations to opt out of the land management sections of the Indian Act and establish their own regimes with respect to managing land and resources.

Specifically, it allows First Nations to develop land codes, pass and enforce laws with respect to issues like the environment and matrimonial real property, clarify the legal status of bands and band councils and establish relationships with provincial and municipal governments.

And it is surely self-evident that you can't run a government if there is no means to plan how the community will use its land. In today's competitive economy, investors won't wait around while bureaucrats and politicians wrangle over jurisdictional issues.

They'll simply move on, taking their money—and jobs—with them.

First Nations asked that we open up the First Nations Land Management Act so that others could avail themselves of its provisions. We've agreed and we've done so. We want to expand the number of communities managing their own land, natural resources and revenues in ways that work best for them.

By ensuring that decisions about land are made by the community, it can attract investment, and where there is investment there is opportunity. Opportunity, in turn, means a chance to break the cycle of poverty, create hope and build better lives in stronger communities.

It is an important tool of self-government and it is one we must extend to more communities.

More, it shortens the distance to self-government. Why? Because First Nations that are under the Indian Act have to negotiate land-use planning, but a community under the First Nations Land Management Act comes to the table with those issues already sorted out.

Now, throughout my remarks this morning, you have heard me use the words economic development. All of the initiatives I have touched on—from governance to expanding fiscal capacity, to settling land claims and enhancing control over those lands—is aimed at removing the road blocks to economic progress and reducing poverty -- those "bread and butter" issues.

Our government has increased its commitment to direct economic development initiatives from $25 million to $125 million in less than two years. That investment, in turn, has leveraged over $400 million in economic activity—in jobs, experience and investment in First Nations communities. It has led to real change and made a real difference in the quality of life of First Nations peoples.

But you know, and I know, that the long-term answers to First Nations' concerns do not lie in more money from Ottawa, but in greater control over their own lives and their own communities.

Too often in the past, the best of intentions were frustrated by outdated laws and old fashioned paternalism.

Now we have the opportunity to cut through those impediments, to clear the way for First Nations to play their full part in the life of this country.

Make no mistake. We stand at an historic turning point in our relationship with First Nations. Change is in the air—change which puts the tools of economic self-sufficiency into the hands of First Nations.

Change which knows that the old cycle of social assistance does not work and must not continue. Change that sees economic development—not economic dependency—as the road ahead.

The initiatives I have discussed today advance those goals and continue that momentum. They do indeed take us "Beyond the Indian Act".

For too long we have built "castles in the air." The time has come to put foundations beneath them; to translate old intentions into new initiatives, to do what is right in ways that will work and to get off the merry-go-round of discussions that make us feel good and begin to take actions that really do good.

That's what this is all about. And that's what we intend to do in the days and months ahead.

Back to Index Page