Bill C-30 (Historical)

Specific Claims Tribunal Act

An Act to establish the Specific Claims Tribunal and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

This enactment establishes the Specific Claims Tribunal, the mandate of which is to decide issues of validity and compensation relating to specific claims of First Nations, after their submission to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The enactment also makes consequential amendments to other Acts and repeals the Specific Claims Resolution Act.

[Grand Chief Sydney Garrioch, Manitoba Keewatinook Ininew Okimowin]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the standing committee.

Tansi, Boozhoo, Edlanet'e, good afternoon.

Before I proceed with the presentation, I want to acknowledge the past chair, the member of Parliament Colin Mayes. We had a good working relationship with him. We are trying our best to continue with the work and to bring out the subject issues whenever possible.

On behalf of the 30 northern Manitoba first nations and the 56,000 first nations citizens represented by the Manitoba Keewatinook Ininew Okimowin, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to do this brief presentation on Bill C-30, the Specific Claims Tribunal Act, on the meaning of the treaties and the honour of the crown, and on the mechanisms needed to resolve first nations' specific claims.

Our forefathers, as representatives of our sovereign nations, entered into treaty arrangements with Her Majesty the Queen based on the recognition of our status as sovereign nations and as holders of aboriginal title to our ancestral lands. The MKO first nations entered Treaty No. 4 in 1874, the Qu'Appelle treaty; Treaty No. 5 in 1875-1910, the Winnipeg treaty; and Treaty No. 6 in 1876, the treaties of Fort Carlton and Fort Pitt; and Treaty No. 10 in 1908.-

Establishing a joint independent process for the resolution of disputes and claims between the treaty signatories is consistent with the terms of treaty and the promises of treaty commissioners. Establishing a joint and independent process for the resolution of disputes and claims is also consistent with upholding the honour and fiduciary duty of the crown. The creation of the joint mechanism to resolve claims arising from broken promises of the treaties is also consistent with a special treaty relationship in contemporary form, reflecting changing events and the evolving needs of our respective nations.

Prior to the tabling of Bill C-30 by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development on November 27, 2007, the MKO first nations, other first nations, and several committees, inquiries, royal commissions, and joint task forces had repeatedly called for a better process to resolve specific claims that will be jointly arrived at through the mutual consent of first nations and Canada, truly independent of perceived or actual undue influence by the Government of Canada, and effective in resolving claims and in upholding the honour of the crown.

The Manitoba Keewatinook Ininew Okimowin continues to be supportive of the objective of establishing such a process. It is with great regret that MKO must advise this committee that the mechanisms proposed under Bill C-30 will neither be joint, nor independent, nor effective; nor will Bill C-30 uphold the honour of the crown. The MKO does not support the legislation the way it is.

On November 27, 2007, the AFN and INAC entered into a specific claims reform political agreement to address claims-related matters of importance to first nations that are not addressed by Bill C-30. For example, the minister has agreed to review revisions to the additions to reserve policy that would provide for reacquisition and replacement of those lands.

Bill C-30 and the AFN-Canada specific claims reform political agreement do not address the majority of outstanding claims, for example, the Northern Flood Agreement; treaty land entitlement, as well as the north of 60 disputed lands that exist; and they do not address claims-related issues affecting the MKO first nations, such as claims involving Canada related to the delay in implementation of existing treaties and agreements, claims to resource revenue sharing and compensation for infringements of harvesting rights, and outstanding claims arising from the adverse effects of resource development.

Despite the federal and provincial government commitments and the announcement of the Canada specific claims action plan and Canada's reporting in the September 2007 Public Information Status Report - Specific Claims Branch that the treaty entitlement shortfall claims of Manitoba first nations had been settled, there continues to be significant delay in the implementation of the Manitoba Treaty Land Entitlement Agreement, particularly due to eligibility issues and the resolution of third party interests.

While the “number of acres transferred” is applied by government as a measurement of progress, MKO asserts that the most relevant indicator is the total number of parcels of land transferred and converted to reserve. For example, out of 450 parcels of land currently selected as of July 2007 under the Manitoba TLE Framework Agreement, at least 260 selections, or more than 60% of all selections, continue to be delayed due to disputes regarding eligibility issues, the resolution of competing and third party interests, and the determination of easements in favour of Manitoba Hydro.

With respect to the agreement with Island Lake Tribal Council first nations, at present, all of the 100,000 acres in crown land entitlement has been converted to reserve. However, very little of the 100,000 acres of land to which the Island Lake first nations are entitled to hold in fee simple, for later conversion to reserve, under the Island Lake Treaty Land Entitlement Agreement have been purchased.

There are two parts to that. One is that they have converted that 100,000; the other 100,000 are still in fee simple and still have to be purchased.

MKO has advised Canada and Manitoba that persistent abuses of crown authority and a refusal by both the federal and provincial governments to identify and resolve issues in a manner consistent with the honour of the crown and in a spirit of good faith and compromise are perhaps the most significant causes of delay in the conversion to reserve lands of the majority of disputed parcels under the Manitoba Treaty Land Entitlement Framework Agreement.

The continuing abuses, delays, and disputes over treaty entitlement lands in Manitoba may in the future become a large number of additional unresolved specific claims.

Now I'll pass it over to Louis Harper, the legal counsel for MKO.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

I read the resolution of the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations, and I find it very interesting. Given the amount of time we have left, I will ask you one final question.

If you could make one amendment to improve Bill C-30, what would it be?

[Chief Lawrence Joseph, Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and good afternoon to the honourable members of this standing committee.

I want to bring greetings on behalf of the Saskatchewan first nations chiefs, council members, our senators, our first nations veterans, and our membership.

I'll give you an overview of who we are and what we are. We are probably the oldest and longest-together organization in Canada. This year we are celebrating 61 years of existence as an organization. Call it an advocacy group, if you wish, but it's a treaty organization.

In Saskatchewan, 75 first nations were united in this effort to support Bill C-30. The approximate population of first nations status people is 122,000. I might add also that we do have a very young membership in our first nations population. Our average age is 23.

Some of these things that the Government of Canada is doing are fairly urgent. I'm very pleased to report to the committee that Saskatchewan first nations chiefs are certainly very supportive. We have attached a resolution, dated the middle of February, that fully endorses this and supports the work that was done by the joint task force.

I was very privileged, to say the least, to be part of that task force. One of our technicians, Jayme Benson, was also a member of one of those committees. I was privileged to serve along with our Assembly of First Nations colleagues on the legislation drafting committee.

I might just leave it at that for now, Mr. Chairman, and go to the nitty-gritty, if you wish. You do have copies of our presentation. It is a very short presentation.

I will say to you up front that I personally have served in the government for 30 years and also as a chief for 10 years, and I have never seen this high-level type of commitment from government to actually do something jointly with first nations in a very strategic and structured way. I applaud that. Certainly the political accord that was signed also gives us great hope that there will be work done, futuristic work done, based on mutual respect.

I just wanted to say those words as an opener, Mr. Chairman. If my colleagues here want to say something, I guess this would be the time to do it, with your permission.

[Grand Chief Denise Stonefish]

Again, at the end of my original presentation I indicated that we would like the government to withdraw Bill C-30. Then throughout some of the comments and questions today I indicated that we would like the opportunity to work with this, because in one aspect it is going to be a benefit to the communities.

Again, I state that our biggest concern was the lack of consultation.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

I have heard everything you have said, and I have a very important question to ask all three of you. I am asking you for a very brief reply. Are you asking us to examine Bill C-30 as a reconciliation process or an adversarial process?

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Okay, thank you for that clarification.

I want to comment briefly as well regarding the political agreement that's been referred to a number of times today. Unlike some of the other agreements that have been referenced today, it should be pointed out that work has already begun to implement many of the things that are covered in this agreement. The reacquisition of land in additions to reserve is already in progress. The treaty process is going ahead. Even some of the future work that's outlined in this document is already in process.

So I think some of the concerns about whether or not the government intends to follow through on its political agreement are somewhat misplaced. There certainly is all kinds of evidence that was happening.

I would like to ask a question regarding Bill C-30. We recognize there's a problem with the current system of addressing specific land claims. We recognize there's a huge backlog. The current system doesn't appear to be functioning well.

Would it be your preference to live with the system as it is or accept and work on a bill that may not be perfect but would at least address many of the shortcomings that currently exist? Would you rather live with what we have or move ahead with an imperfect but improved situation that we have now?

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for coming before the committee today.

A number of your recommendations or concerns are covered in the parallel political accord and are not actually outlined in legislation. Some are around appointments to the tribunal and how that process happens; reacquisition of land and additions to reserves; the treaty process, looking at things that are currently outside the specific claims legislation; and future work.

When the minister came before the committee I asked him specifically how people could have any comfort that an actual political accord would be followed up on. The minister said it was a political commitment to a political accord. Because it's a political commitment, I would think that any minister who holds this job would want to follow through on it. To break that would be very unwise.

I want to talk very briefly about the history and get your comments about your comfort level with the political agreement. We have a political agreement that was signed on residential schools. In it there is a commitment that the federal representative will work and consult with the AFN on truth, reconciliation, and apology. Of course, we know an apology is currently being drafted without the participation of the AFN. That political agreement was signed back in May 2005.

There was also a first nation-federal crown political accord on the recognition and implementation of first nation governments. Of course, that was intrinsic to the Kelowna accord, and we know that agreement has been broken.

A parallel political agreement is fairly important to how tribunal members are appointed and first nations are involved in that decision-making about any other problems that are raised around specific claims. What's your comfort level with both the current government and future governments living up to political accords, when we've seen that they've consistently been broken in the past?

That's a fairly political statement, but I think there's a lot of trust involved in asking people to sign on to Bill C-30, and that political accord is tied into it. I wonder if you could comment on that.

[Grand Chief Denise Stonefish]

You asked if the bill will move the settlement along for claims made over the last 10 years. It's unfortunate that if the federal government has no land or jurisdiction to award land, we are again at the mercy of the parliamentary process, and our member nations, or at least some of our member nations, would utilize that to move these claims along.

Unfortunately, even though we spoke specifically to the role that land plays in our communities, we know that southern Ontario is being developed on prime agricultural land. All these urban centres are expanding far more than I think they should, but where are you going to put all those people? Therefore, in southern Ontario there is greater potential for no land to be available, and we would probably have to utilize the land claim process.

When I made my recommendation that Bill C-30 be withdrawn, it was so we could have the opportunity to provide a proper analysis and address the concerns that are being questioned of us today.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Good afternoon. I thank you all for appearing before the committee. I certainly want to commend you on your presentations.

To the Union of Ontario Indians, with Deputy Grand Chief Hare, I certainly appreciate the fact that you've itemized some of the amendments you would like to see and the rationale behind them. That certainly makes our work very easy in terms of progressing if we as a committee decide to go in that particular direction.

As well, I appreciate the comments of Mr. Hunter and Grand Chief Stonefish.

One of the first questions I raised with the minister when he was before this committee talking about Bill C-30 was the issue of land and the prohibitions within certain phases of the Specific Claims Resolution Act that, once you go to a tribunal, you can only compensate people in a monetary fashion. The minister's response basically was, listen, the federal government doesn't own any land, or what we do own is so minuscule that it really wouldn't have much of an impact, because we can't award it; we have no jurisdiction to award it.

But I still think this is a major issue that's reflected in each of your presentations, and I wonder, with the way the bill is structured and the language that's in it, will first nations themselves be willing to engage in this process with that prohibition in place, the fact that you cannot compensate with lands? They can only compensate from a monetary perspective. Will people be less willing to engage in this process? If the bill goes through as it is, will people be less engaged?

I wonder about section 91.24 of the Constitution, which says that the federal government has responsibility for Indians and lands reserved for Indians. That might not necessarily be the boundaries within which people operate now or have been confined to by the various historical incidents, happenings, laws, people taking the land, that type of thing.

I'm looking for more clarification on this from each of you. What I want to know is, are you going to be willing to engage? If this bill goes through, will people engage? If people don't engage, what's the use of it?

Secondly, how comfortable is anybody with one judge being the final arbiter of any claim that you put forward, if you went to the tribunal? There's only one judge—not three, just one. I'd like to know that.

[Grand Chief Denise Stonefish, Association of Iroquois and Allied Indians]

Thank you for this opportunity.

The Association of Iroquois and Allied Indians was established primarily as a political organization in 1969 to represent its members in relations with any level of government affecting the well-being of the members as a whole. The association currently represents eight member nations, with a combined membership of approximately 20,000 people. These include the Batchewana First Nation, Caldwell First Nation, Delaware Nation, Hiawatha First Nation, Mississaugas of the New Credit, Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte, Oneida Nation of the Thames, and the Wahta Mohawks.

Again, the association provides political representation and policy analysis, and AIAI is committed to protect, defend, and enhance the inherent rights of our member nations.

First, the association would like to acknowledge our disappointment with the Assembly of First Nations and their decision to submit this new legislation for consideration by Parliament. AIAI feels that AFN did not have such a mandate for this action and wants this to be acknowledged. We feel there was an important consultation function that was not performed. The AFN was mandated by resolution 08/2007 and 23/2007, which I have attached to our package.

Both resolutions speak to a mandate of advocacy for a new specific claims process, but nowhere do they state that AFN has the authority to make decisions on behalf of first nations, that they have the authority to agree to develop the process, and/or that they have the authority to submit such significant legislation to Parliament for consideration.

It was always our understanding that AFN would work on developing a new specific claims process with the Government of Canada, but that before any serious movements were made on a new process such as a submission of the bill for consideration, that first nations could and would review the bill. This important consultation never occurred, and the association is adamant that it should have occurred and that the AFN had no mandate to move it forward as it did.

When the AFN passed resolution 50/2007, which is attached, the AIAI chiefs and/or proxies opposed this new resolution, which encouraged first nations to review Bill C-30 and forward their views to the crown and the parliamentary committee on aboriginal affairs. First nations should have been consulted before this legislation was submitted to the parliamentary process. At this point, the only option first nations have to be consulted is in this committee forum, and therefore our decision-making ability has been taken away from us. We are now at the mercy of the parliamentary process.

On the importance of land, Canadians have seen, over the years and decades, first nations peoples working and fighting for the return of their lands. Some first nations peoples make use of the avenues of advocacy set up by the Canadian government, and some resort to the infamous tactics of blockades and protests. First nations people work and fight for land because it is so important to our way of life and to our people's physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual survival. Canadians may never fully understand the connection first nations feel to our land. Because of the importance of land to first nations people, it's difficult to put it into words.

Keith Basso, an anthropologist, describes the impact of depriving peoples of their connection to the land. He says:...deprived of these attachments...

--meaning connections to places--we

find ourselves adrift, literally dislocated, in unfamiliar surroundings we do not comprehend and care for even less. ...sense of place may assert itself in pressing and powerful ways, and its often subtle components--as subtle, perhaps, as absent smells in the air or not enough visible sky--come surging into awareness. It is then we come to see that attachments to places may be nothing less than profound, and that when these attachments are threatened, we may feel threatened as well. Places, we realize, are as much a part of us as we are a part of them....

Keith Basso nicely articulates the deep-rooted connection that first nations people feel to our land, and it is very much a part of who we are.

Now, here are our comments on Bill C-30. The association understands that, if passed, Bill C-30 would continue to deprive first nations peoples of their attachment to their land and to their places. The most damaging aspect of Bill C-30 is about the monetary compensation and not about the land. AIAI understands that there is an initial negotiation process that could have small possibilities of resulting in settlement that includes land. However, we also understand that this is highly unlikely.

When negotiations fail, which they certainly will in most cases, the claim will be moved to the independent tribunal process for a decision. The tribunal has no authority to award land. Subclause 20(1) of Bill C-30 outlines the basis and limitations for decisions on compensation. It is this clause that states that the tribunal will only award monetary compensation, that this compensation shall in no way exceed $150 million, and that it shall not be given out for punitive and exemplary damages or harm or loss, including those of a cultural or spiritual nature.

Not only is this process not about land, but it is also not about the things that the land informs, such as culture and spirituality. These are important aspects of the way of life for first nations, and they are also being removed from the factoring into this process.

AIAI is not willing to support a specific land claims process that has no true ability to return land. Our communities are not focused on money, although we will concede that money does play a role in land claim settlements.

At the core of land claims is the land and our connection to it. This is what we would like the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development to remember when reviewing Bill C-30, the Specific Claims Tribunal Act, an act that has no real ability to settle land claims in a manner that will honour our connection to the land.

We share our comments with the committee in hopes that our grave concerns do not fall upon deaf ears. The association recommends that Bill C-30 be withdrawn.

Thank you.

[Luke Hunter, Research Director, Land Rights and Treaty Research, Nishnawbe Aski Nation]

Good afternoon to you all. My name is Luke Hunter. I'm the research director of Nishnawbe Aski Nation. I am very pleased to be able to speak to you on Bill C-30, An Act to establish the Specific Claims Tribunal.

First I would like to provide a brief background on the organization that I represent. The Nishnawbe Aski Nation, or NAN, represents 49 first nations within the territory of the James Bay Treaty and the Ontario portion of Treaty No. 5. The James Bay Treaty, also known as Treaty No. 9, was signed in 1905-06 with adhesions in 1929-30.

The treaty covers two-thirds of Ontario, more than 200,000 square miles, spanning from the height of the land to the James and Hudson's Bays, to the boundary of Quebec to the east and Manitoba on the west boundary.

Matters are complicated with respect to treaty land claims under Treaty No. 9, for two reasons. First, the Province of Ontario was a signatory to the treaty and played a major role in drafting and executing Treaty No. 9. This is the only numbered treaty in Canada, of 11 in all between 1871 and 1930, to have had full participation of the provincial government in the drawing up of its terms and negotiations with the first nations.

I want to begin by quoting a recent court case that involved a first nation and a resource development company. It was a dispute over lands and resources.

Paragraphs 79 and 80 of Mr. Justice G. P. Smith's reasons for judgment, on July 28, 2006, commented on the special relationship that first nations have with the land in awarding an injunction in favour of a first nations community known as Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug, commonly referred to as KI.

The quote is:

Irreparable harm may be caused to KI not only because it may lose a valuable tract of land in the resolution of its TLE claim, but also, and more importantly, because it may lose land that is important from a cultural and spiritual perspective. No award of damages could possibly compensate KI for this loss.

It is critical to consider the nature of the potential loss from an Aboriginal perspective. From that perspective, the relationship that Aboriginal peoples have with the land cannot be understated. The land is the very essence of their being. It is their very heart and soul. No amount of money can compensate for its loss. Aboriginal identity, spirituality, laws, traditions, culture, and rights are connected to and arise from the relationship to this land. This is a perspective that is foreign to and often difficult to understand from an non-Aboriginal viewpoint.

Many of NAN's claims arise from the manner in which the treaty was made. The reserve provision of the treaty, for example, was understood in tandem with the belief that harvesting in the traditional territories would not be interfered with. Will the tribunal take into account the oral history surrounding the making of the treaty and the verbal promises made by the treaty commissioners?

The proposed tribunal seems best suited to address the current problems that the government is experiencing, i.e. the backlog in resolving land claims, rather than addressing the first nation's concerns. The proposed tribunal cannot address that many of NAN's claims stem from the making of the treaty itself, which are confirmed by the oral history and the recorded promises contained in the diaries of the treaty commissioners.

The tribunal will only deal with issues involving matters that arise from the Indian Act, such as failures of the federal government regarding the administration and management of lands and other first nations assets, including trust funds and breaches of the Indian Act. Some of these examples include land expropriation, illegal surrenders, road and railroad corridors, timber, and other band assets.

The tribunal cannot address claims where the province arbitrarily amended reserve boundaries in the post-treaty years as a result of the third party interests, or the creation of provincial parks or federal parks wholly encompassing reserves, despite the promise that first nations could continue to live as they and their forefathers had done.

Since 2001 NAN has begun researching treaty land entitlement claims that involve land, and therefore Ontario's involvement to resolve them. How will this proposed tribunal help NAN, since Ontario does not have to be a party and can choose to ignore the tribunal altogether?

The Ipperwash inquiry in Ontario recommended the creation of a commission of Ontario that would assist Canada, Ontario, and first nations to negotiate settlements and land claims. How will Canada work with Ontario to ensure that the federal specific claims process, the tribunal, and the TCO commission of Ontario work together?

There is no mention in the proposed Specific Claims Tribunal Act of how first nations are to be funded in order to appear before the tribunal. Will first nations receive funding to bring claims to the tribunal?

It is a concern that the tribunal will make orders of costs. An example is in subclause 12(3) of the bill. It states that:

The Tribunal’s rules respecting costs shall accord with the rules of the Federal Court, with any modifications that the Tribunal considers appropriate.

Costs generally flow from the event, meaning that the losing party pays the costs of the winning party. Will first nations have to pay Canada's costs if the tribunal rules against their claim?

The current draft bill also assumes that once a tribunal makes a decision the claim is settled once and for all; therefore, if a claim involves land issues, Canada's legal obligation is discharged and released at the time of the tribunal decision. In essence, it has the same effect as an extinguishment policy inherited in the current specific claims policy. No first nation will ever agree to take a specific claim to a tribunal involving land. When the Government of Canada appeared before this committee it made references to first nations purchasing land using settlement moneys from a third party interest, and those lands could be converted to reserve lands. There is no mechanism in this bill for this to happen other than the political accord that was signed between the minister and the AFN.

These are my comments to the draft bill. l've raised some serious issues and shortcomings of the proposed legislation.

Thank you.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you.

I appreciate the concerns expressed by Mr. Cullen. I was actually just about ready to quote Mr. Layton, so I'd like to continue to do that. He said, in his testimony, “I think of the people who thought about connecting one end of the country to another with a railroad.” This is an analogy he used to help us understand what his vision was for Bill C-377. He went on to say:

Do you think they had it all figured out as to how they were going to pull it off? Do you think they had figured out how they were going to pay for it all? Did they do it perfectly? The answer to all those things would be no, but they had a dream about where they wanted our country to be, and they took on the impossible and they focused on it.

What Mr. Layton has admitted is that he has no idea how it's going to be paid for. He has no idea on the substance of the bill. He even describes it as an impossible dream. And the Liberals break out in song.

We heard in testimony after testimony that this bill should be costed, and there should be an impact assessment. We heard that from every group of witnesses, including Mr. Layton himself. He said that the government should cost it.

The next witness after that was Mr. Bramley, and Mr. Bramley also said that it should be costed. When he was asked about it being costed, he said, “To my knowledge, that hasn't been done, and it needs to be done”, referring to the costing.

And then it was actually Mr. Vellacott who said, “So you personally have not done any of the economic modelling that specifically focuses on Canada?”, to which Mr. Bramley answered, “No”.

So we're not making up anything here. It's well documented in the blues that the bill hasn't been costed. It's void of substance. It will not stand a constitutional challenge. I believe it was even a member from the Bloc who said that this bill needs to be totally rewritten.

One of the greatest hypocrisies that the NDP could put on us is if they wanted to substantially amend their own bill, because a substantial number of witnesses who came before our committee said it was fraught with problems, and I've just touched on a few. So they brought to committee a bill that is poorly written, not costed, which will not stand up constitutionally, and now they want to totally rewrite the bill.

The motion I made is relevant because I think the bill needs to be totally redone before it comes back here.

I personally believe that Canada does have a turning-the-corner plan, which is supported by Parliament. It was part of our Speech from the Throne, and it was supported by this government and this Parliament. That is the Canadian plan, the turning-the-corner plan, which has very definite targets of absolute reduction of 20% by 2020, and 60% to 70% reductions by 2050. And those are the toughest targets in Canadian history.

During the hearings on Bill C-30 the NDP tried to write in medium- and long-term targets that appeared in Bill C-377. The Liberals opposed them by saying those targets were too tough. You can check the record.

The fact is, I have a quote from Mr. McGuinty here saying,

I think we'd have some difficulty, Mr. Chair, in increasing this number for fear that it would not fit with so many of the achievable outcomes that we heard about from different expert witnesses.

And then he went on to say, “We do not accept the friendly amendment.”

That was on March 27 of last year in the committee studying Bill C-30.

I have another quote here, and it was from Mr. Godfrey. On March 27 he said,

Like previously, we certainly wish to be ambitious, but also we want to be realistic. But concern and prudence for giving ourselves a bit of room to manoeuvre, as we have done on the 2020 target, means that we can't accept this, much as we'd like to, as a friendly amendment.

He was referring to the amendment from the NDP. That was again at the committee studying Bill C-30 on March 27.

Yet four weeks later, on April 30 of last year, the Liberals voted to support those targets in the House of Commons. Do they now disagree with the targets that they wrote into Bill C-30? I'm not sure. There appears to be a flip-flop from the leader of the opposition and also from his environmental critic.

Mr. Chair, I want to talk about the NDP hypocrisy on the environment. Just what is the position of the NDP leader in short-, medium-, and long-term targets on greenhouse gas reductions?

Recently Mr. Layton and the NDP have supported two different positions: the targets they wrote with the Liberals into Bill C-30, which could have cost Canadian families and businesses 275,000 jobs and sent gasoline prices soaring to $1.60 a litre, and now even tougher targets on this bill that would harm the economy even further. The NDP are being hypocritical by supporting two different positions. When will they come clean with Canadians about their real position on greenhouse gas emission targets?

Mr. Chair, the turning-the-corner plan is the first time ever that the federal government focuses on mandatory requirements for industry to reduce greenhouse gases and air pollution. We will take immediate action by implementing mandatory targets on industry so that greenhouse gases begin to come down. The turning-the-corner plan takes us in the right direction.

Another relevant piece I would like to introduce is a letter addressed to you, Mr. Chair, from Sheila Fraser. This is in response to Bill C-377 and what the NDP did in drafting this poorly written bill. This is the response from Sheila Fraser:

I am writing to provide you with comments on Bill C-377, which I understand is currently before your committee. In preparing this letter, I have consulted with the Interim Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Mr. Ron Thompson. Although we appreciate the confidence shown in the work of our Office by the drafters of the bill, we do have serious concerns with section 13. Put simply, this section would require the Office of the Auditor General of Canada to undertake two types of work that are inconsistent with both its legal mandate and accepted practice for Canadian legislative auditors. First, paragraph 13(l)(a) would require us to determine the likelihood of certain measures attaining results in the future. Our audit mandate is different and requires us to examine and report on what has happened, rather than what may or may not happen. Second, paragraph 13(l)(b) would require us to give policy advice to the Minister or the Governor in Council. This is inconsistent with our legal mandate and accepted practice for Canadian legislative auditors. Our role is to provide Parliament with objectively determined and credible audit findings. I hope that these comments will be helpful to you and your committee. I would be pleased to elaborate on them at your convenience.

I think that might be helpful.

I'd like to share with the committee a few of the other comments. As I said, I asked each group whether there should be an economic analysis on this, and every group said yes.

These are some of the comments that I have highlighted from Professor John Stone:

I certainly have been very encouraged by the words that I've heard from the present government, Mr. Warawa, of their intentions to tackle the issue.

He was referring to our turning-the-corner plan.

Of course, we need to cost whatever plans they have from whatever party we have and in whichever country we're talking about. That's only good public policy. I will just have to assume that whatever plans are presented to Parliament and to the Government of Canada and to Canadians are properly costed. Yes, I agree with you.

So there's another example of Dr. Stone saying that it has to be costed.

We've heard from Jack Layton that it wasn't costed and that he wants it costed. He's recommending that it be costed.

So we're really putting the horse before the cart by going ahead without it being costed.

I brought this up a number of times, Chair, that it should be costed, and yet we're moving ahead. They're wanting to move ahead. It takes time to do this properly, but no, there's not an appetite to do this properly. They want to greenwash this bill.

Dr. Stone went on and said the following:

I don't see that Bill C-377 is necessarily inconsistent with where our present government is going, nor indeed with the aspirational statements I've heard from other parties. My sense is that slowly—and I emphasize slowly—we seem to be coming to a consensus amongst parties in Canada that in fact this is an issue we cannot afford not to tackle. I've been encouraged by what the present government is saying in its levels of targets and the like.

So we have, again, support for our turning-the-corner plan. Parliament has taken a position that the targets of 20% reduction, absolute reduction, by 2020—and these are post-Kyoto, post-2012 targets—and 60% to 70% reduction by 2050 are realistic and achievable, and they have been costed. The position of Parliament is that this is the plan of Canada.

For the NDP to introduce Bill C-377, a bill that hasn't been costed, that will not stand up constitutionally, that has no policy attached to it.... These are just vague, meaningless targets. The bill has to be totally rewritten. We've heard that it would give the federal government sweeping and unlimited powers over the provinces, which would raise real concerns provincially and constitutionally.

So it's a poorly written bill. I think my motion that it not proceed, which would result in it going back to the House, is the right motion.

I look forward to other comments, particularly on the costing aspect and the constitutionality of this.

[Deputy Grand Chief Glen Hare]

To facilitate a fair process and to establish a system that is more cohesive with our traditional forms of governance, subclause 11(2) should be amended to state that a hearing will be held in front of a three-person panel to implement a consensus-based approach to decision-making. We are unequivocally opposed to one person having final decision-making power, and feel that a consensus-based decision-making approach is more consistent with our traditional forms of government.

Therefore, we recommend that the hearing be heard and decided by a three-person panel.

Bill C-30 should be amended by striking subclause 12(3) to prevent overtaxation of first nations' financial resources. We are also of the opinion that an award of costs against a first nation claimant is another form of denial of justice. First nations are not the ones responsible for the long-standing backlog of specific claims; thus we recommend that subclause 12(3) be removed from the bill to ensure that first nations are not footing the bill of injustice.

Subclause 13(2) should also be struck from the bill to ensure that first nation claimants are not penalized for Canada's failure to resolve specific claims in a timely manner. The same reasoning is applicable to subclause 12(3). First nations should not be held accountable for injustices that would not have occurred if the crown's honour had been upheld.

Paragraphs 15(1)(d) and 15(1)(g) should also be struck, as the crown and first nations disagree as to whether the exceptions listed therein are, or are not, treaty rights. It is up to the Specific Claims Tribunal to determine what constitutes a treaty right and to keep open the possibility that first nations' harvesting rights in the future may form the substance of a specific claim.

It is suggested that a federal–provincial working group be established to harmonize the resolution of specific claims, particularly to resolve the issue of returning or adding lands back to first nations.

Bill C-30 should also be amended to include a new subclause 15(5):The Minister shall review subsection (4), three years from the coming into force date, the exceptions listed therein to determine if compensation will still be limited to monetary compensation.

Subclause 20(1) should be amended to include the current legal principles with respect to compensation, as the rule with respect to equitable compensation may hinder a first nation's claim from fitting into the proposed regime.

Subclause 21(1) should be amended by including a right of first refusal provision for the first nation who has been found to have been unlawfully disposed from their land.

Understanding jurisdictional matters of specific claims, the Nishnawbe Nation recommends that a federal–provincial working group be established to harmonize the resolution of specific claims, as it is unlikely that the province, particularly Ontario, will elect to become a party under subclause 23(2).

Those are our recommendations. Again, we're here for questions and answers later.

[Deputy Grand Chief Glen Hare, Union of Ontario Indians]

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. We appreciate being given the time to speak to you today.

My name is Glen Hare. I'm from the M’Chigeeng First Nation. That's on God's country, Manitoulin Island. I'm also a former chief of our community--for 14 consecutive years--and I've had three terms as councillor. Now I'm the deputy grand chief. We're halfway through our three-year mandate at the union.

We're here to applaud and support the historic bill that's before us. We do have some recommendations, and we're hoping it is taken that we are here to enhance and strengthen it, and that everything is taken positively.

I'll go right to the recommendations.

The first one we have is that subclause 6(2) of Bill C-30 be amended to include lay people and legally trained persons with subject matter expertise as well as superior court judges in forming the membership of the Specific Claims Tribunal. This makeup has the potential to be more representative of our first nation communities, given that there are not many first nations superior court judges.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I will now bring the meeting to order, please.

We are going to be continuing with our hearings on Bill C-30 today.

Before I get to our guests today, I have just a couple of comments. First of all, I'd like to thank Ms. Crowder for taking the chair on Monday in my absence.

One other general comment before we start is that before the break we had a discussion about witnesses and the agenda for the committee, and we agreed we would plan up until the two-week Easter break and for the first meeting back afterwards. There was some concern, obviously, that we might be into an election campaign. I think now it appears that is not going to happen.

I won't make any comments on that score, but it appears that we will be here longer; therefore, I'm hoping that next week we can have a meeting of the subcommittee to discuss the agenda on a go-forward basis for after the Easter break—how we're going to continue working our way through the witnesses for Bill C-30.