Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Feb. 27th, 2008

[Deputy Grand Chief Glen Hare]

I don't want to speak on behalf of the grand chief, but I'm assuming the grand chief did. On behalf of and with the support of our nation, he asked me to be here today because, again, today we're meeting as a nation in Garden River First Nation, and he was required to be there.

So I do believe there is that good relation between the AFN and our organization.

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

But you're not aware of what kind of response there may have been from the Assembly of First Nations to the submission you made to them.

[Deputy Grand Chief Glen Hare]

No.

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

Okay.

With regard to representation on the tribunal, there's a concern about having one person sit. I can accept that, and I respect that. I should point out that in the proposed legislation, in subclause 12(2), there is the opportunity there for an advisory committee to advise in the development of the rules of the tribunal. Also, in paragraph 13(1)(c), with regard to the appointments, it says the tribunal will “take into consideration cultural diversity in developing and applying its rules of practice and procedure”.

So I think there is worked into the draft document an understanding that we do take those cultural considerations seriously. I just wanted to point that out.

Going back to you, Grand Chief Stonefish, you pointed out first of all that the AFN did not have a mandate to represent you. I think those were your words, or something to that effect. I can accept that. It's my understanding, however, that the AFN was charged with the responsibility of engaging in consultation with first nations groups. Yet I heard you say repeatedly today that the consultation never occurred, that it was not performed. I think I heard you say as well that the first time you saw this draft document was December 6.

So you were not involved at all in the development of this draft document? Is that correct?

[Grand Chief Denise Stonefish]

Correct, yes.

And I did indicate that the AFN, through the resolutions, was mandated to work with the Government of Canada to develop this process. But in the meantime, it was also our understanding that once that process was developed and the bill was developed it would come back to the first nations for review and consultation. However--

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

Prior to coming here?

[Grand Chief Denise Stonefish]

Prior to coming here. That was my comment.

[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?

[Deputy Grand Chief Glen Hare]

For me, the quick answer to that is that we have to move forward. I know our leadership is concerned that it has been outstanding too long. I know we've been waiting years and years in my own community. So we have to move forward, and I hope we can all do it collectively. That's why I appreciate the time we were given here today to enhance and support the bill.

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

Do we have time for Mr. Hunter to respond, just yes or no, to the current...?

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Yes.

[Luke Hunter]

Yes, short answer, yes--

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

You prefer we move ahead?

[Luke Hunter]

Yes.

[Grand Chief Denise Stonefish]

Yes, move forward, but we would still like the opportunity to review the bill and provide comment.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Albrecht.

To the Bloc, Monsieur Lévesque.

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

I heard Ms. Stonefish mention that First Nations have little confidence in the processes that have been put in place up to now. I understand that, and I doubt if she is the only First Nations person to think that way. You just have to remember the agreement that was signed in Kelowna. You were probably there, after all. That was enough to destroy anyone's confidence.

But on the matter of the tribunal, your proposal is that three judges make up more a board of arbitration than a tribunal. If you were asked to work with the department to recommend judges from a list that you and the department had agreed on, would you have a little confidence in the judge chosen to hear cases? There would only be one judge per case, but there would be a list drawn up by First Nations in collaboration with the department. Would that help a little to address your lack of confidence and your problem with the judges' credibility?

[Eliza Montour]

Sir, being legal counsel, I don't think I can say I don't have confidence in judges. I do have confidence in judges.

[Tina Keeper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

I hope so.

[Eliza Montour]

I think what we're seeing here.... I think you misunderstood, sir. We're not recommending an advisory committee. If you look at the structure of the other tribunals, usually it is mixed membership. We're usually looking at legal people and lay people. So I think that type of system can be facilitated here.

I know that in the political accord the national chief will be working with the minister to develop that roster or make recommendations. So we have faith and we support the AFN's work.

I hope that answers your question.

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

In one sense, yes. but I tell myself that, in the people around a judge, there will be legal people and non-legal people. You would probably like there to be at least one person that you chose, and I wonder if, at that point, the department would not ask for one person that it chose.

Do you not think that that could drag the process out?

[Eliza Montour]

No, I don't think it would make the process more drawn out. We have the political accord there that says we're going to work together to develop this roster with the concern with judges. Why not use the same political accord and say we're going to develop a roster of however many it takes--24--of lay people, legally trained people, with judges also? So I don't think it could; I think it can quickly be done.

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

What do you think about it, Mr. Hunter?

[Luke Hunter]

I really have no issue with the judges. Judges are very competent people. I would rather see an independent judge make an impartial decision, as opposed to government bureaucrats making decisions on all my claims. I'm okay with it.