Mr. Speaker,

Election overspending is a serious offence, but Conservative MPs seem to think election laws are optional.

Elections Canada has now said there are three Conservative MPs who are not entitled to sit or vote in this place: the member for Selkirk—Interlake, the member for Saint Boniface, and now the member for Essex. Last week the member for Peterborough tried to abuse his parliamentary privilege and interfere with an Elections Canada investigation in his riding.

The law is clear.

Why does the Conservative government refuse to enforce the Canada Elections Act?

Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario, CPC):

Mr. Speaker,

These Members of Parliament were duly elected. We expect that they have the right to speak in defence of the filings that they made and which Elections Canada has in the past accepted. The member across mentions their right to sit in the House of Commons. In fact, we all have the obligation to sit in the House of Commons. That is why we are paid. Unfortunately, her leader actually skipped out on his obligation to vote in this chamber in order to get paid a second time for a charitable appearance that all of us in this House would normally attend for free as a matter of our parliamentary duties. It is time he paid back the money.

Canada is facing a skills shortage or more accurately a disconnect between workers’ skills and labour market needs. These chronic labour shortages are projected to worsen as we face an aging population and a job market skewed more and more toward skilled labour. Put simply, Canada risks a future of jobs without people and people without jobs. Canadian business understands this and believes engaging Canada’s aboriginal population the youngest and fastest growing population in the country is fundamental to meeting this challenge.

Just this year the Canadian Chamber of Commerce identified Canada’s labour skills shortage as one of the ten biggest barriers to Canadian competitiveness and the Aboriginal population as “a huge potential workforce” that we must support more. The Canadian Council of Chief Executives’ most recent pre-budget consultations also made it clear that the government must improve education and skill levels within the Aboriginal population and expand opportunities for Aboriginal peoples to participate fully in the economy.

In the economy of the 21st century, access to jobs and even skills trainingrequires a high school and often post-secondary education. Shockingly, only one in three Aboriginal kids on reserve is graduating high school and that outcome has not improved over the past several years. We know youth who graduate high school are twice as likely to find a job as those who don’t, and research shows that Aboriginal high school graduates have almost the same post-secondary participation rate as non-Aboriginal high school graduates. But sadly, First Nations, Inuit and Métis youth are still significantly under-represented in post-secondary education.

In her 2011 report, the Auditor General of Canada made it clear that the government, “has not maintained a consistent approach and cannot demonstrate improvements to date” in closing the First Nations’ education gap. This conclusion was supported more recently in the government’s own 2012 Evaluation of the Elementary/Secondary Education Program on Reserve, which found, “education opportunities and results that are comparable to the Canadian population is not being achieved.”

Although First Nations have made meaningful strides to improve education, the lack of proper resources has severely limited their progress. Appallingly, students attending school on reserve are funded on average at two thirds that of provincial systems. Despite this, the government has consistently failed to make the needed investments to close this gap. In fact, the Conservative government still denies this funding gap existsfurther straining its credibility and relationship with First Nations across Canada.

The government’s own 2012 Evaluation of the Elementary/Secondary Education Program on Reserve contradicts its spin. The evaluation states, “Expenditures to First Nations and tribal councils for the operation of schools do not appear to account for actual cost variability applicable to the needs and circumstances of each community or school, and particularly the cost realities associated with isolation and small population.” As noted earlier this year by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, “Funding for aboriginal education at all levels has lagged for many years, and education results have, too. It’s not hard to see the connection.”

The government’s response to the unacceptable aboriginal high school graduation rate has been to deny existing funding gaps and set an uninspiring target of just an eight per cent improvement over five years. Aboriginal Affairs Minister Bernard Valcourt now claims that the solution to unacceptable First Nations graduation rates will be the anticipated First Nation Education Act, but the Conservatives’ track record of broken promises, misleading figures, and their complete failure to meaningfully consult on the development of previous bills does not bode well for this new piece of legislation. First Nations are frustrated that yet again the government chooses to legislate instead of meaningfully addressing the funding shortfalls well-documented by auditor general report after auditor general report.

We need to engage in a renewed respectful and inclusive process with First Nations like the one resulting in the Kelowna Accord. That bottom up process lead to a series of concrete commitmentsincluding $1.8-billion over five years to achieve both a high school graduation rate for Aboriginal people equal to other Canadians and a 50 per cent improvement in post-secondary education completion rates by 2016. Unfortunately the current government walked away from these commitments.

Now, five years after the Prime Minister’s apology for the tragic historic wrongs of the Indian residential schools, we must rekindle the goodwill and promise that existed on that day. As a young elementary school student said so eloquently at the “Our Dreams Matter Too Walk” in Ottawa last week, “this apology has meaning only if First Nations children have opportunities, can grow up happily in their homes, have a good education, be healthy and have pride in their culture.”

Canadians believe in equality of opportunity and understand that access to education for all children is an issue of fundamental fairness. Let’s get on with it.

Liberal MP Carolyn Bennett, who represents St. Paul’s, Ont., is her party’s aboriginal affairs.

news@hilltimes.com

The Hill Times

Online: http://www.hilltimes.com/policy-briefing/2013/06/17/aboriginal-education-canada%E2%80%99s-moral-obligation-constitutional/35061

The federal government continues to face accusations that it’s imposing paternalistic legislation and failing to consult with First Nations, but the Conservatives insist that their legislation will improve on-reserve quality of life and stimulate economic development.

The Conservatives continued to move forward on First Nations legislation last week, passing two more bills that will impact those living on reserves across the country for better or worse.

Bills S-2, the Family Homes and Matrimonial Interests Act; and S-8, the Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act, passed third reading in the House of Commons last week and await royal assent.

The bills take steps to improve the quality of life for on-reserve First Nations, but have been criticized by the Assembly of First Nations, individual bands, and opposition critics for imposing new responsibilities on First Nations communities without addressing the underlying lack of capacity in many communities to implement the new requirements.

While Bill S-2 sets out rules for dividing on-reserve matrimonial property in cases of divorce and enables First Nations women to obtain emergency protection orders against abusive partners, it has been criticized for failing to address the demand for women’s shelters, social services, and legal resources needed in cases of domestic disputes.

Bill S-8 empowers the federal government to impose mandatory drinking water and wastewater regulations for reserves, but doesn’t address the issue of financing water system infrastructure and operation on reserves. The legislation also protects the federal government from being sued over any issues related to the regulations.

The recently passed bills are the latest to affect First Nations. Last year’s budget bills, C-38 and C-45, sparked much of the outrage that led to the Idle No More movement by making significant amendments to environmental laws that will expedite natural resource development in and around First Nations’ territory, including limiting the scope of the Fisheries Act and restricting the participation of groups in the environmental assessment process.

In March, the government passed the First Nations Financial Transparency Act, which requires First Nations bands to publish the salaries and expenses of elected officials online, as well as the financial information of band-controlled businesses. The requirements go far beyond MPs, Senators, and Cabinet ministers’ own financial disclosure responsibilities, and the bill does not include funding for communities to implement the legislation.

The government is also moving ahead with Bill S-6, the First Nations Elections Act, which updates the framework for First Nations elections and includes clauses that enable the minister of Aboriginal Affairs to impose the requirements on communities without their approval.

Indigenous legal scholar John Borrows, a member of Ontario’s Chippewas of Nawash First Nation, told The Hill Times that the government’s current approach to First Nations’ self-determination goes against traditional conservative values of limited government and free choice.

“Conservative principles are that big government should get off the backs of people, including Indian people, and the best way to get big government off the back of Indians is to allow them to locally determine what they think their objectives should be,” Prof. Borrows said. “It’s somewhat ironic that we have a Conservative government in power right now that seems to want to operate in accordance with these Republican-type principles, and yet it’s big government that’s being used to put in place the [First Nations] transparency act, the elections act, and the matrimonial property act.”

Prof. Borrows, who previously taught aboriginal law at the universities of Toronto and Victoria, is currently the Robina Chair in Law, Public Policy, and Society at the University of Minnesota. Since joining the University of Minnesota in 2009 he has studied U.S. policy and found greater progress south of the border in promoting indigenous self-governance.

“The reason is that all of these pieces of [U.S.] legislation have as their guiding principle that Indian people are self-determining,” Prof. Borrows said. “What Congress does is pass enabling legislation which recognizes the inherent rights of indigenous self-determination. This enabling legislation allows governments to be able to partner with First Nations as they determine on a piece-by-piece basis.”

Federal legislation and policies aimed at facilitating First Nations self-governance is not at work in any of the government’s recently passed legislation, said Liberal MP Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul’s, Ont.), her parties aboriginal affairs critic.

The problem, said Ms. Bennett, is that much of the government’s legislation is mandatory for First Nations and gives the minister of Aboriginal Affairs the power to impose requirements and withhold funding based on new conditions.

The First Nations Financial Transparency Act allows the minister of Aboriginal Affairs to withhold or terminate funding if a reserve fails to meet the requirements, the First Nations Elections Act allows the minister to impose the requirements on reserves without their consent, and the Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act protects the federal government from litigation.

“It is a bizarre approach to resetting the relationship and the duty to consult. It’s paternalism and prescriptive father knows best,’” Ms. Bennett told The Hill Times.

Ms. Bennett, who sits on the House Aboriginal Affairs Committee, said that on bills like S-2 and S-8, several witnesses raised concerns that the federal regulations would put new pressures on reserves without addressing the lack of capacity that is required for implementation.

Ms. Bennett said that the First Nations Election Act “could have been a poster child” for a new way for the federal government to work with First Nations, but the government instead chose to allow it to be imposed without consultation.

“This was an opt-in bill that should have been supported because it was optional, and they couldn’t help themselvesthey put in a clause that allows the minister to impose it,” she said. “They have suggestions coming bottom up from First Nations, they codify them, and then add some poison pill at the last minute.”

However, Andrea Richer, press secretary to Aboriginal Affairs Minister Bernard Valcourt (Madawaska-Restigouche, N.B.) disputed suggestions that the government was failing to take its consultation with First Nations into account when it drafts legislation.

Ms. Richer stated in an email response that the government had consulted with First Nations on the forthcoming First Nations Education Act, which she said would make on reserve schools “of equivalent quality” to off reserve schools and be “flexible enough” to enable First Nations to design programs and curriculum that would address their unique needs and interests. She said that draft legislation based on consultation will be shared with First Nations and educators by the end of the summer.

“This is just one example of the steps out government has taken to create the conditions for healthier, more self-sufficient First Nations,” she replied. “We remain committed to continue working with aboriginal Canadians and ensure they are full participants in building a better future for themselves and a stronger future for Canada.”

cplecash@hilltimes.com

Twitter: @chrisplecash

The Hill Times

Online: http://www.hilltimes.com/policy-briefing/2013/06/17/federal-conservatives-taking-%E2%80%98big-government%E2%80%99-approach-to-first/35053

Why is the government violating the privacy of Canadians instead of protecting it?

Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence, CPC):

I again refer the member to the same report, wherein the commissioner of CSEC says, “I found the new policies and procedures to be comprehensive, containing satisfactory measures to protect the privacy of Canadians”.

This same commissioner is meeting with the Privacy Commissioner tomorrow. The report is there. It is tabled annually in Parliament. I invite the member to take the time to read it.

*   *   *

As background, you may want to:

• Read Senator Nicole Easton’s Motion to Authorize Committee to Study Tax Consequences of Various Public and Private Advocacy Activities Undertaken by Charitable and Non-Charitable Entities Negatived
• Look at Imagine Canada’s Sector Monitor site which examines the ability of non-profits to accomplish their missions
• Read this background document which examines the relationship between Civil Society and the government.

How would you improve the relationship between the non-profit sector and the government? What factors do you consider when making decisions about making donations to a charity? Please let us know in the comments.

Event Summary

What Was Heard?

• Hon. Carolyn Bennett opened the Town Hall with a discussion around accountability and transparency of the charitable sector.  She asked the group what role they felt the government could play in helping clarify which charities spend their dollars most efficiently. Some suggestions included development of a simple chart showing each charity’s ratio of money spent on administration compared to actual field work as well as the adoption of standards for a charity’s use of dollars (i.e. Platinum, Gold, Silver) to assist people in making donation decisions.

• Several attendees pointed out that the ratio of admin costs vs. good works costs may not be the best way to determine a charity’s worthiness.  For example, a newer organization will naturally spend more on admin costs as they get the operation up and running and they should not necessarily be penalized for this.

• The discussion then turned to the issue of longer-term, sustainable funding. At present, the government generally declines to provide ongoing, core funding to charities and NGOs, opting instead for short-term, project-based funding.  This results in projects being limited in scope and requires that many jobs in the sector be contract based instead of permanent positions.  It was noted that the process for applying for government funding is so laborious that many organizations do not have the staff power required to complete the applications.  In addition, the reporting process is so complex that it often hinders the organization’s ability to do its core work.

• The group also talked about the desire for more prevention based programs and the need for government funding to be extended to those groups that are working on the prevention front. Currently it is very difficult to receive funding for prevention programs.

• There was also a discussion around the role that advocacy plays in the not-for profit sector. New Canada Revenue Agency rules have limited the amount of advocacy work that registered charities can engage in to no more than 10% of their total budget.  However, there is a general lack of clarity regarding what constitutes advocacy and how that budgeting process is managed.

• Many people are concerned that the not-for-profit sector is being muzzled by the government.  Some organizations, particularly those who deal with some of Canada’s most vulnerable people, feel they are not able speak out on behalf of their clients for fear of having their funding reduced.

• The discussion also explored how government can better support and reward those who devote their time for volunteering in the not-for-profit sector. For example, it was suggested there could be a very small tax deduction provided to people who consistently volunteer.

Raiyah Patel-Justin Trudeau-Xavier James Trudeau-Carolyn Bennett

She was truly inspiring!

• Welcome elders, community leaders, teachers and fellow students to Our Dreams Matter Too.
• We meet here today on traditional Algonquin territory to remember, to dream and to walk.
• June 11^th has special meaning because it marks the anniversary of the Canadian government’s apology for residential schools, and their terrible effects on First Nations children.
• If we forget our history, we will never be able to correct our mistakes.
• So on this day we remember the apology, but this apology has meaning only if First Nations children have opportunities, can grow up happily in their homes, have a good education, be healthy and have pride in their culture.
• Shannen Koostachin had dreams and hopes, and only wanted what many Canadian Children take for granted: a good education and a nice school.
• Shannen’s dream still inspires us, and today we walk in her memory and with her hopes in our heart.
• Let’s all take a moment to think about Shannen, and to remember her courage and sense of justice.
• So we remember, we dream and although our walk today is short, it is part of a longer journey for equality and justice.

Hon. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul’s, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker,

This morning, the member for Papineau and I were proud to attend the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada event, Our Dreams Matter Too, at Victoria Island.

I would like to read to the House the poignant words of Raiyah Patel, a young student from Pierre Elliott Trudeau High School in Gatineau, who welcomed us there.

She said:

Welcome elders, community leaders, teachers and fellow students to Our Dreams Matter Too. We meet here today on traditional Algonquin territory to remember, to dream, and to walk. June 11th has special meaning because it marks the anniversary of the Canadian government’s apology for residential schools, and their terrible effects on First Nations children. If we forget our history, we will never be able to correct our mistakes. So on this day we remember the apology, but this apology has meaning only if First Nations children have opportunities, can grow up happily in their homes, have a good education, be healthy and have pride in their culture. Shannen Koostachin had dreams and hopes, and only wanted what many Canadian children take for granted: a good education and a nice school. Shannen’s dream still inspires us, and today we walk in her memory and with her hopes in our heart—

Hon. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul’s, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker,

Canadians have had enough paying for the Conservative pretty department.

First, the Prime Minister gets caught paying his personal make-up artist and stylist out of taxpayer funds.

Then the finance minister is caught billing taxpayers for Maybelline and CoverGirl cosmetics, trying to look good on budget day.

Now, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs is trying to get a taxpayer rebate for beauty products and services during the last election.

Would the government confirm that the parliamentary secretary did not break Elections Canada rules?

Ms. Eve Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC):

Mr. Speaker,

More than two-thirds of my personal expenses were for child care, as I campaigned from 7 a.m. until after 10 p.m. every day.

While voters can tell members that my five-year-old son came to many doorsteps, he also had to eat, play and go to sleep at a reasonable hour. I had to keep campaigning.

In fact, the media called my campaign particularly respectful, intelligent and focused on issues, not on mudslinging.

Elections Canada has very clear-cut rules and definitions of what can and cannot constitute a personal campaign expense. All campaigns, including my campaign, need to follow those definitions.

Hon. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul’s, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker,

I am sad to say that the bill represents yet another of the bait-and-switch approaches of the government. In good faith, the first nations have suggested the need for legislation in a certain area. The government went forward and drafted a bill and then put in a poison pill that no first nation can live with.

This was to be an opt-in bill. That was the purpose of the bill, that first nations could decide whether to adopt the template for first nations elections as outlined in the bill. Then the government put in paragraphs (b) and (c) of one clause that give the minister unprecedented powers to impose it on a first nation.

Yet again, the Conservatives cannot help themselves. Why can they not listen? They pretend they do not know, but the bill actually came from the Senate and all of this was debated in the Senate. The Assembly of First Nations, the Atlantic Policy Congress and all of these people told the government that, and yet there is no concession that there needs to be an amendment and that these egregious paragraphs of the clause need to be removed.

The bill is to establish an alternative regime to the one in the Indian Act to govern the election of chiefs and councillors of certain first nations. Among other things, the regime would provide that chiefs and councillors hold office for four years. It would provide that the election of a chief or councillor might be contested before a competent court and sets out the offences and penalties in relation to the election of that chief or councillor. The enactment would also allow first nations to withdraw from the regime by adopting a written code that sets out the rules regarding the election of members of their council.

Although the Liberal Party is very supportive of what was the intent of the bill, we will be moving amendments that would remove the part that is so offensive to first nations in terms of, yet again, the paternalistic approach—father knows best—of the minister being able to impose this on what was intended to be a purely opt-in piece of legislation.

Although we will support the bill, and again we agree with the choice to adopt an improved election process over that contained within the Indian Act, we insist that Parliament must ensure that Bill S-6 does not give the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs new powers that go against the opt-in nature of this legislation.

For first nations that currently hold elections under the Indian Act, this opt-in legislation contains many improvements to the election process, including extending the term of office for chiefs and council from two to four years and removing the involvement of the minister and the department in the appeals process in setting out offences and penalties for corrupt and fraudulent activities.

However, given the opt-in nature of Bill S-6, it is unacceptable that the Conservatives have included a clause that introduces a new power for the minister to compel first nations currently under their own custom election code to go under the elections process established in the bill. The Assembly of First Nations calls this “inappropriate use of federal legislation”.

Further, rather than creating a new independent and impartial first nations elections appeals body, the government chose instead to refer the appeals process to the court system, which might prevent first nation citizens from bringing forward legitimate appeals, as the cost of going to court could be prohibitive.

While the bill is largely based on consultations with first nations, the Conservatives have included elements that were not supported during the consultations and have refused to remove or amend the offending sections. Yet again, the government has no idea what consultation means. Consultation means we go out and ask the questions and actually listen to the answers.

Consultation does not mean an information session, just dictating “take it or leave it” and then not coming back with the amendments or some evidence that we had heard what was said.

It is clear that no first nations, even the first nations who brought the idea of this bill to government, are in favour of these two paragraphs in clause 3 that give this unprecedented power to the minister.

As we said before, Bill S-6 is largely based on the outcome of a consultation process conducted by the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs, which resulted in the publication of the discussion paper, “Improving the System for First Nations Elections”, in October 2010.

The discussion paper identified problems with the election provisions under the Indian Act. There are 240 first nations in Canada that hold elections under the Indian Act electoral systems, 341 first nations that hold elections under their community or custom election code and 36 first nations that currently select their leaders under self-government agreements.

Bill S-6 would allow first nations under the Indian Act system or custom codes to opt in to the proposed legislation through a band council resolution.

The AMC-APC discussion paper identifies several reasons why there should be another option for first nations that wish to leave the outdated Indian Act system.

The term of office for elected chiefs and councils under the Indian Act is only two years, which places communities in a continual state of electioneering and undermines long-term planning.

The mail-in ballot is prone to abuse.

The appeals process to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development is paternalistic and complicated and often takes too long to produce findings and a final ruling.

The absence of defined election offences and associated penalties, like those in the Canada Elections Act, allows alleged cheating and activities like selling and buying of votes to go unpunished.

The AMC-APC discussion paper made suggestions to remedy these concerns, which are included in Bill S-6: namely, the term of office is increased to four years; the mail-in ballot system is improved; the minister is removed from the appeals process; and new election offences and penalties are prescribed.

In addition to these concerns, the discussion paper as well as the May 2010 report by the Senate committee on aboriginal peoples, “First Nations Elections: The Choice Is Inherently Theirs”, suggested that a new and independent impartial elections appeal body be established to provide culturally appropriate and cost-effective appeals.

The government chose instead to refer the appeals process to the court system, which might prevent first nations citizens from bringing forward legitimate appeals, as the cost of going to court could be prohibitive. It appears that this is simply a transfer of costs related to appeals from the department to individual first nations citizens.

The Senate committee’s observations on Bill S-6 also noted that, “…the proposed approach may not practically address the need for an expeditious and culturally appropriate appeals process”.

Bill S-6 is an optional piece of legislation and is clearly preferable for first nations that are dissatisfied with the current Indian Act system but have decided not to enter in a community or custom election code.

However, the bill as currently written, provides in paragraph 3(1)(b) the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development with explicit powers to bring first nations currently under the Indian Act system or a custom code under Bill S-6 if:

Paragraph 3(1)(b) is deeply problematic for two reasons. First, it would give the minister new powers to place first nations, which are currently under custom code, under the new first nations election act, despite the fact that under current legislation the minister has no power to intervene in custom code first nations without a formal request from the first nation or a court order. The minister does have similar powers under the Indian Act, but not related to custom code first nations.

Second, the terms “protracted leadership dispute” and “significantly compromised governance” are not defined in the legislation. Paragraph 3(1)(b) should be amended to define these terms and clarify that paragraph 3(1)(b) does not apply to custom code first nations, which should retain the ability to choose if and when they wish to enter into new legislation.

I would recommend to the government and to the minister to read what happened in the Senate. Here on this side we are blessed to have senators who do extraordinarily good work. I commend to the government the six reasons as stated by Senator Lillian Dyck in her speech in the Senate as to why this bill needs to be amended.

She gives six reasons.

The first is that no one agreed with these measures, except for the Department of Indian Affairs. The second is that it is unconstitutional; third, the minister gains new powers; fourth, there are better ways to intervene; fifth, there is no guarantee that the minister would not use the clause inappropriately; and sixth, it is just not the right thing to do in the 21st century, when we are trying to have first nations communities build capacity to develop their own custom code elections.

In her speech, Senator Dyck went on to quote from the organizations that had provided the genesis for this bill and explained that both the regional first nations organizations, the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and the Atlantic Policy Conference, who were the instigators of this legislation, were asked only for opt-in provisions with regard to paragraph 3(1)(b). She quotes

Chief Nepinak of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, who stated:

She went on then to quote Mr. John Paul of the Atlantic Policy Conference, stating:

Then she went on to quote Chief Jody Wilson-Raybould of the Assembly of First Nations, saying:

Dr. Dyck then went on to quote the witness from the Canadian Bar Association, who stated that that clause should:

Witnesses from the Assembly of First Nations, she says, as well as the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and Chief Cook-Searson from Saskatchewan, all thought that paragraph 3(1)(b) should be deleted from the bill. The message was very clear: paragraph 3(1)(b) should be deleted because it is unacceptable practice in the 21st century and because without excluding the first nations operating under custom code elections, the bill goes beyond the scope of opt-in legislation for first nations under the Indian Act.

Dr. Dyck then went on to her second reason to delete the clause: its unconstitutionality.

She again quoted the witness from the Canadian Bar Association, who said that application of paragraph 3(1)(b) to first nations with customary systems of governance potentially infringes on constitutionally protected rights of self-governance. The witness stated:

She went on to quote the witness, who stated that:

Dr. Dyck then went on:

She stated she felt that:

Dr. Dyck talked about the third reason to delete paragraph 3(1)(b), explaining again that new powers under the custom code first nations through this clause are unacceptable. She said:

That is the policy that is now in practice.

Her fourth reason to delete paragraph 3(1)(b) was that:

The fifth reason Dr. Dyck cited was that:

As we know, there is very little trust between first nations and the government at this time.

It is concerning to Dr. Dyck, as she has said:

Her sixth reason was that it is simply not the right thing to do in the 21st century. I quote her closing. She said:

Water Levels Fall in Great Lakes, Taking a Toll on Shipping

Aboard the Dorothy Ann, in Lake Erie near Fairport Harbor, Ohio — As Capt. Jeremy R. Mock steered this 711-foot combination of tug and barge toward a harbor berth, a screen of red numbers indicated the decreasing depth of water under the vessel: 6 feet, 3.6 feet, 2 feet.

Suddenly the numbers gave way to a line of red dashes: — — — — .

It was a signal that there was not enough water to measure.

Read full article