Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on March 3rd, 2008

[Grand Chief Sydney Garrioch]

Let me first clarify the referendum.

I integrated two parts to the referendum. Before a leader goes forward to initiate this tribunal system, he needs consent from his people to go forward and table it before the act. That's one issue. They need that consent. Now turning to the process, the chiefs have to report, consult their people on what stage or level the court system may be at in regard to this land and compensation.

You talked about the acquisition. It may be outside, and I don't know if it can be done, but that's the point we were trying to make. The issue of acquisition of land, to restore that reserve that's outstanding, may be a very complicated system, or it may not be at all.

The other matter is compensation. When you get something monetary, either you release or extinguish or you never ever get access for using your land again. They need that consent. The people collectively have to agree to that ruling, or the system of accepting or approving for the people in the referendum. Those are the two parts of the referendum requirement.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

I guess my argument would be that a duly elected chief and council should have the right to proceed on behalf of their people with this particular process if they so choose. I think that's the element of becoming an elected chief. You're given that ability to negotiate on behalf of your community. So should a community want to bring about additional rules as to what that community can or cannot do, I think that's reasonable. There's no reason that a community couldn't come up with that type of process on their own.

Do you think that having a referendum could be outside of the legislative process and rather be done at the community level?

[Grand Chief Sydney Garrioch]

Not knowing the process itself, the way the bill is written is one matter, and however they deal with these matters, the act or the regulation or the policy is another area. It's still unknown how this is going to look.

The governing of this act is another component that's unknown, and again, the process itself with the system here...that's why I talked about that system, the independence and the influence of the government.

The process that we like to see is our customary law, and we have a system in place from our people in our different communities that they do things together, and they pretty well agree. If they cannot agree to the system, they leave it alone for a time being and they go back to it within a year or two years and they start discussing it again. That's the process of our customary law.

With what we have here, certainly some grey areas are unknown, and we want to express that the people very much need to be involved and they need to be consulted. Outside this bill that's proposed, the Indian Act is the supreme governing system, and there is a provision, as we mentioned, in the sections that have to be put to work that overlaps this area.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Thank you.

Committee members, Monsieur Lemay has suggested that we stay and use up some more of the time with our witnesses. If that's the will of the committee, what I would suggest--we have about 20 minutes--is that we do a truncated second round, five minutes, one per caucus, and that will take us to the top of the hour as opposed to a whole bunch of three-minute segments. Is that's agreeable?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Okay. So it will be Liberal, Conservative, Bloc, and then NDP.

So five minutes, Mr. Russell.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses for their time today and for sharing their views on Bill C-30.

The committee itself has a difficult task in front of it, given the many different opinions that have already been expressed by the various witnesses.

We can make amendments to this bill, as you know, or suggest amendments to this bill. Is it your view that you can live with this particular piece of legislation, given its faults, even in terms of process, from your perspective? Can you live with certain amendments in this particular piece of legislation?

[Grand Chief Sydney Garrioch]

I indicated outright that MKO cannot support the proposed bill as it's written, and even, too, with some amendments that we introduced or recommended, we cannot live with it. We cannot. It's not going to work for us.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

So even with the amendments you have suggested, you don't feel this is the approach?

[Louis Harper]

I think maybe just to elaborate on Grand Chief Garrioch's comment, we do not support this bill the way it is written. We feel it's not broad enough. It's not inclusive of other claims that we have, and if it was, then maybe we would of course go to our people to see whether or not they would support it.

The way it is, the option that a first nation has is like...to use an analogy, you wave a golden carrot and say, come on over, we have some money for your land. This is not acceptable, because land is very important to our people and to lose the land through this option is not acceptable.

So I think inadvertently, if we lose land, at least the minimum requirement should be a referendum to ask the very people who are going to lose the interest in their land--to ask them.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

I understand you--I hear you--when it comes to that particular view. The first question I raised with the minister when he was in front of us was the whole issue of land and the potential extinguishment or quitting of the claims of land. I fundamentally hear that in your presentation. But I guess we're going to be in a conundrum at this committee in terms of how we go forward if we can't expand certain pieces of this legislation to soften the impacts or the potential impacts.

I often hear, in what you're saying, your own independence as sovereign nations to make your own decisions regarding how things should go forward. Just as the government cannot delegate its responsibility to consult, neither can you abrogate your responsibility to make decisions for your own lives. That's what I'm hearing when you speak, a strong independent voice for your own people. Then we have that juxtaposed against a process with the Assembly of First Nations, which is an umbrella organization representing various interests across the country.

If we as a national government try to propose legislation, how do you propose we go about that differently? It's virtually impossible to negotiate a global or national piece of legislation with bilateral negotiations with each sovereign nation. It would be very difficult to do that. In the interim, what do we do?

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I'm sorry, but this will have to be a fairly brief answer. I need to keep this round to five minutes.

[Louis Harper]

Did you want me to respond to your question?

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

I like listening to this Mr. Harper.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Louis Harper]

With regard to the Assembly of First Nations, we do applaud them for their efforts with regard to trying to resolve and fast-track the specific claims. To have undergone this process, I know they've had difficult times. They've reported that to us in our assemblies. It's not the perfect bill that they had expected, and of course they have this accord in which they will deal with other issues that are not dealt with in the bill.

But what we're saying—I want to repeat this--is that if there were major amendments to the bill, maybe we could live with that. Certainly we're not opposed to resolving the historic claims relating to treaties. This has been outstanding for many years. But I think the message we're trying to give is that in law they talk about buyer beware; if a leader decides to opt for this process, inadvertently he might compromise the land that the first nation would have acquired or the reparation or the land that would have been given back from the previous loss.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Thank you very much.

Monsieur Lévesque.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I simply wanted to clarify something with our witnesses before letting my colleague speak.

If I understood your vision of things, under the current process, even before launching a land claim, you would prefer to hold a referendum asking your people for direction. With us it works differently; usually our governments are elected to do something, then they do something else, and then we tell them that we did not elect them to do that. I understand that you want to be clear before you proceed.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I would like it to be noted for the record that Monsieur Lévesque is talking about the former Liberal government, not this government.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Monsieur Lévesque.

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

That's the best way to disturb people.

I will try to pick up where I left off. But seriously, the gentleman is rarely bothered in this way.

I understand your point of view and I appreciate it, because it is very diplomatic. However, I seem to understand that after you have consulted your people first to find out whether you can go ahead, you would like to consult your people a second time to see if they agree. I don't understand that. Under the bill, after you hold your consultations and after appearing before the tribunal, the decision will be final. The process will start.

My parents always taught me—and I also learned this in college—that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Today you have a land claim. The land you live on now is small. You are claiming a greater territory. As I was saying to the departmental official, $150 million is not a lot of money. Today, $200 million is nothing. If you make a claim before the tribunal, you might end up with more land than you would otherwise obtain.

After you respond, my colleague will probably have another question.

[Grand Chief Sydney Garrioch]

Thank you for an excellent question.

As we indicated, to initiate a claim, this tribunal system is one area of concern that we are expressing. You need consent, plus the people out there need to understand why you want to go through this process and how it will benefit them. They need to understand, as well, whether they'll ever get access or acquisition of land. It's out of question. They need to understand that.

You're going to get something in return. That's the only thing that you will always remember—that's it. It's another issue that needs to be understood by the people, why you need consent, the referendum, because for people who are living today, our land and this process are very important to the future of our children, who we love, the children who should have access to the land that they used to. They may not be able to do that in the future if they settle. They will surrender that piece of land that they have enjoyed in the past.

As well, in this process they may also extinguish the aboriginal title. As we stand currently indicating our position, we have aboriginal title.

Those are very important questions, and I certainly tried very hard to answer that question. It's very significant. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Mr. Lemay, you have one minute.

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

I will be very brief. I can't wait to read your translated brief because it seems very interesting to me. However, I have to admit that your position is not very clear to me. I will have to read it again. When the bill will be passed, I think you will freely abide by it, although you will realize that some rights will disappear.

So are you asking that the government or another body pay for consultations with all of your nations before beginning the process? Is that correct?

[Grand Chief Sydney Garrioch]

One of the priorities I mentioned earlier is consultation. We're indicating to the standing committee that it must consult. The first nation has to be consulted.

There are a number of treaties that we signed. On all the treaties that we signed, those people and our first nations are an independent sovereign nation and they have to look at their own first nation. That community setting is one matter that needs to be understood very clearly.

But there are overlapping issues in our communities and our region. There are overlapping traditional areas and lands that we enjoy. No one community can extinguish that portion or parcel of land that we are talking about.

So it is important for the standing committee to understand our position, that if you consult, they need to understand what they're going through and what they accept. This approval process has to be with the people as well. It's not only up to the legislators or the parliamentarians to make a law for us; we need to consent to that law as well.