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

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

I think it does, yes. I appreciate that.

Perhaps I could move on to Grand Chief Stonefish, in relation to some of your sentiments in relation to the bill's being withdrawn. I appreciate that you did say subsequently that you appreciated the AFN's ongoing interest in advocating for a new process. And though you would have appreciated more consultation, I think you did say that the AFN very likely was trying to act in the best interests of the first nations people.

Am I wrong in thinking that?

[Grand Chief Denise Stonefish]

No, I don't think you're wrong. Again, we do support the Assembly of First Nations. However, as in any other organization, we do have concerns about organizations and their way of doing business. Of course, I could say the same for my own organization at times too, and that also can be applied to both the federal and provincial governments.

Yes, there are times when we feel they're not acting in the best interest. The only thing I'm saying in this particular instance is that we were not provided, I believe, sufficient time to review and provide analysis for our member nations.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Okay. I think I'm out of time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Thank you.

I have been relatively liberal with time here today in the first round, giving the witnesses--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Some of the members are a little frisky today. We had caucus this morning, so they're still getting over that.

In the second round I'll try to keep the time close to five minutes.

Ms. Keeper.

[Tina Keeper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank our guests for being here today. It is really important for me as a parliamentarian to hear your presentations. Indeed, as we are discussing this piece of legislation it is especially important that your voice is heard, so I really appreciate it.

I'd like to ask a question specifically to the Anishinabek Nation, to the Union of Ontario Indians. In your presentation, under item 1 of concerns and recommendations, the last sentence says:

This strict adjudicative nature and functionality of the Specific Claims Tribunal will hinder the sui generis nature of specific claims resolution and the Aboriginal-Crown relations because the Specific Claims Tribunal will be just like any other court, as it limits First Nation jurisdiction and fails to promote mediation and negotiation, which is fundamental to reconciliation.

Could you just elucidate on that statement?

[Eliza Montour]

Pardon?

[Tina Keeper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

Could you explain to us what that means to you and why you put it in there?

[Eliza Montour]

After reviewing the whole bill, what we're looking at is that the tribunal will--if it consists of all judges--sit down and draft their procedures, their rules, how they're going to do business. Not only that, their decisions will be final and conclusive. What we're looking at is that if there are only judges being members of this tribunal, it's going to very likely mirror a court. It's going to be very--

[Tina Keeper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

In terms of aboriginal law, is there something that's out of order? I guess that's what I'm asking. Is that what this is alluding to? In terms of how a specific claims resolution should move forward in terms of the aboriginal common relations, is there something that you see as out of order in what has been presented?

You're saying we'll move forward in this fashion. That's true, but why is that problematic, in your mind? Why is that a problem?

[Eliza Montour]

I don't understand your whole question or explanation.

[Tina Keeper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

You're saying that you don't agree with the process that had been put forward, right? So what is the problem with that process, from your position?

[Eliza Montour]

Our position here is that we're looking at reconciliation. We're going back to our first recommendation, that we feel the tribunal should be made up of superior court judges, lay people, and legally trained people, so you have a mixed membership. We're looking at a panel that is somewhat understanding and representative of our governance in first nations.

If we're looking at just another type of court system, everybody knows that litigation usually doesn't lead to reconciliation. We're supposed to get to the resolution of specific claims. We're supposed to reconcile our differences. But we feel that if we have just another tribunal that's specifically structured in a court manner, we're not going to get there, so that's why we're making these recommendations, to try to be more cohesive.

[Tina Keeper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

So as far as you're concerned, that's a fundamental flaw in terms of a process that's supposed to be, as you're saying, about reconciliation.

[Eliza Montour]

I'm not saying it's a fundamental flaw. I do believe that this bill, even as is, is better than the current system. What we're trying to do is enhance and strengthen it by giving you some more recommendations and saying, here's what we think will make this a great bill.

[Tina Keeper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

Thank you very much.

I'd like to ask Grand Chief Stonefish a question, and Mr. Hunter may want to respond as well. This whole issue, which has also been raised by the Union of Ontario Indians, is around the relationship of the province as a party. We were told by the bureaucrats who are involved in this process that they cannot be made a party to the bill or to the process. We're kind of going back, in terms of a reconciliation process, and asking how we move forward.

I'd like to ask, in terms of this recommendation around the federal-provincial working group, why is that critical to this process?

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I'll just ask for relatively brief answers.

[Eliza Montour]

Why is a federal-provincial working group critical to this process? Well, legally we have a division of powers. That division of powers in jurisdictional matters does hinder the resolution of our claims, because as we all know, feds don't own that much land; it's held by the province. If first nations want the land back, or would like to get land or acquire land of some nature, we need the province sitting at the table.

We'd like the working group to be established because we know these jurisdictional issues aren't going to be solved overnight, but we'd like some work to be started.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Anybody else?

[Grand Chief Denise Stonefish]

In terms of the relationship with the province, again, similar to what Eliza has indicated on the division of powers, with us, the federal government and the provincial government are the crown, one and the same. Maybe there should be a relationship with the province in these matters.

As I indicated earlier in my presentation, some ways of trying to do business are protests and blockades, and I don't think we want to go there any more. It can lead to a volatile situation, and we want to be able to sit down and work with both the federal and provincial governments in addressing these land claim issues.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Mr. Hunter, do you have anything you want to briefly add?

[Luke Hunter]

Yes, thanks.

In relation to the provinces, yes, as we all know, in Treaty No. 9 we do have that treaty relationship. In terms of working together to deal with land issues, in the past, federal and provincial governments worked together to draft the land transfer act. We weren't part of it in the initial round. There's no reason why we shouldn't be involved this time, be involved in how we benefit from and distribute resources.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Thank you.

Mr. Albrecht, five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, thank you to each of the witnesses for being here today.

I just wanted to comment to Grand Chief Stonefish that you can be assured that your concerns have not fallen on deaf ears today. I appreciate your sharing of your concerns regarding the spiritual connections and the cultural and spirituality considerations that we should take into consideration. However, I need to remind you—and I don't think I would need to remind you—that we are somewhat limited in our ability to award land. As you pointed out, it's not widely available in terms of just saying you can have this land.

I have a couple questions to ask Deputy Grand Chief Hare. You gave us a six-page document here, with nine recommendations.... Oh, was it ten? I have nine.

Had you the chance to formally discuss these with the Assembly of First Nations during the consultation process? And what kind of response did you receive during that process?