Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on March 3rd, 2008

[Chief Lawrence Joseph]

Zero.

Is there some? A very small percentage.

Jayme, I don't know, maybe you have some figures.

[Jayme Benson]

I think there's a perception out there that when you're talking large claims, you're talking billion-dollar claims. On the $150 million limit, depending on how the tribunal addresses compensation, there's going to be a range of claims in the $100 million to $200 million, which could possibly encompass some.

It will be a minority, but those will be the ones that are just in the bill, out of the bill--that sort of thing. When we're talking about how to address claims over $150 million, I think it's important that there's a fair process there, particularly because there will be claims that are just in there or not. I can't say for certain until you actually do the studies what individual claims are worth.

Most of the claims in Saskatchewan should be covered by this bill.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Okay.

[Chief Lawrence Joseph]

At least the backlog, anyway. I guess that's what I was referring to, the backlog of 95 claims in Saskatchewan. I think a lot of them will fall within the number that is allocated for.... It's the ceiling, I mean. But as for the other ones, we just never know, as they come about.

For Saskatchewan it's a good deal.

[Jayme Benson]

The largest one we've settled so far is Kahkewistahaw surrender claim, which is about $94 million to $96 million.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Right, okay.

Perhaps I'll just try to communicate some of the logic for not having claims above $150 million in the bill. I think Chief Joseph agreed with this over the summer of negotiations, but perhaps you could put on the record whether or not you agree with this logic.

When the $150-million-and-less claims are removed from the current process of negotiation between the crown and the first nations, it will free up focus for the federal government to spend time just on the largest claims, which are a very small percentage. As such, that will not only make the claims resolution at the low end efficient, but also bring a great degree of efficiency at the high end. I guess that's the logic I've been attempting to communicate.

I'm not sure if you agree with that, Chief Lawrence.

[Chief Lawrence Joseph]

I would agree with that, with some reservations. But when you look at the majority, I think nationally we're looking at 95%—and that's just a figure I throw out—that would be looked after with this particular bill if it comes about. Thereby, if the bill cannot cover the ones over $150 million, didn't focus on them, I think that's politically sound and certainly something that first nations would like some commitment on. As long as there's a process in place that will address the bigger claims in excess of $150 million, I think that's what they're looking for. Saskatchewan certainly hears the rationale behind that, and Saskatchewan certainly wants to support those first nations in that situation.

What I do agree with is that this bill facilitates closure of long-outstanding business in terms of specific claims, not only as they relate to land, but there are also bands in Saskatchewan that they call rebellious bands, which have some treaty things that were not covered. They were denied treaty payments, annuity payments for instance, for many years because of the allegations that they went with Louis Riel when he was fighting the government at that time. So the allegations have to be tested. Again, I think whatever's going to them will fall under this umbrella.

Overall, sir, in answer to your question, the region of Saskatchewan certainly supports this bill because there's commitment to actually set aside money, commitment to develop legislation, and commitment to get this work under way. The political accord that's tied to this is very futuristic and there's political will in there, and we appreciate that.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

How much time do I have? One minute, okay.

Perhaps I'll just follow up on what you were saying in relation to Saskatchewan based on your understanding of all of the chiefs, that as far as you know there seems to be broad support for the bill in its current form.

[Chief Lawrence Joseph]

Yes, sir, there is pretty broad support, because what we had before was basically nothing. I must say, though, that under our treaty promise we try to live according to the laws of the land, but oftentimes we seem to be in litigation after the fact, and that's costly for us. I don't think any of our chiefs in Saskatchewan want to go through that.

This bill gives us hope that there will be negotiations based on mutual respect and realities. It's an admission from our government that there's outstanding business to be dealt with, and if this bill passes—and hopefully it will—it will facilitate those discussions.

It's not perfect, I must say that. I'm not on record as saying we support this 100%, but it's one heck of a lot better than what we had before.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Thank you, sir.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Thank you.

That's the end of our first round. We're going to go into our second round of questioning. We have 15 minutes left, so I'm going to have time for three five-minute turns.

Mr. Russell, you're first for five minutes.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon to our witnesses. We're certainly glad to have you here.

I appreciate the work you've done in bringing this bill before this particular committee and before the House of Commons.

I would just make a statement that the duty to consult is a legal duty the government has, and one cannot pick and choose in that particular regard. I would have wished that the government had chosen this course on other pieces of legislation, like the repeal of section 67.

I would also say that I hope the political accord you've signed with the government is going to be much more successful than the Kelowna accord, which the government has cancelled.

I would also like to ask a couple of very pertinent questions.

We can make amendments, or we can suggest amendments, to improve this legislation on the understanding that it is not a perfect piece of legislation. There are some problems with it. It's our time to do that now, not at some future point. If there were one or two amendments you would like to see us put forward, with the cooperation of all members of the committee, what would they be? I'll save this point until last.

I was really struck by your statement, Chief Joseph. You said that you need your land back; you want your land back. But interestingly enough, this particular piece of legislation cannot provide land in terms of awarding compensation.

I understand how fundamental land is to first nations, to Métis, and to Inuit communities and peoples. I would just ask how fundamental that piece is, how problematic it is, given that you can't be awarded land and that you really have to quit claims to certain pieces of land that the minister himself says are now in the hands of third parties. The release provision is necessary in order to clear title to the land. He's saying that we must have this approach in order to clear title to it.

So I would ask, first of all, about the issue of land, and as well, about any amendments.

[Chief Lawrence Joseph]

Well, not to be facetious, Mr. Chairman, but I think the amendment I would like is that there be no ceiling on any of these claims whatsoever. I think that would be fair and realistic in terms of your national debt to the world. What about your debt to the first nations people? Why should there be a ceiling on anything when you're talking about a debt that has been there since the treaties were signed? I think that would be my first comment. Not to be facetious, but that's where my head is. You have a debt owing in the area of treaties. Promises were made not that long ago, and here we are.

Not to criticize the government, but we as Canadians are helping Afghanistan rebuild their country. Why are we not offering to help first nations people rebuild the people after their demise under the residential school system and so on? I'll just offer that as a comment.

On having the land back, I mean that literally. The treaty land entitlement process was good, in a sense, to a point. It actually had land claims whereby we could actually establish urban reserves and establish agricultural land, land that could lead to our self-sustenance. That's what I'm talking about. With any money we have, as long as there are no restrictions on it--we can't spend the money for this, we can't spend the money for that--we could buy land and actually create businesses and create economic development opportunities. That's what I'm talking about.

As far as we're concerned--and certainly it's affirmed by the superior court decision in Delgamuukw--we did not relinquish or extinguish our ownership or our title to a lot of the land in Saskatchewan, to these lands in Canada. That's what our elders have been talking about for years. We didn't agree to give up this land; we agreed to share. So when we say we want our land back, we're saying, look, Canada is getting some very good benefits from the resources. In Saskatchewan, it's called the Natural Resources Transfer Agreement of 1930. All the resources go to provincial coffers; we get nothing, nothing at all. When we say we want our land back, our resources back, that is what will lead towards self-sustenance. That will lead towards getting our dignity back. That will lead towards treaty promises that were made.

That's what I'm talking about, sir.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

But how does this bill facilitate your getting land back if you say you have quit claims to certain tracts of land in exchange for cash?

[Jayme Benson]

I could actually answer that a bit.

I do a lot of negotiations, and none of the negotiations I've been involved with actually provide for land. It's usually land on a willing buyer and willing seller basis.

The way a negotiation would work is that if a band lost 33,000 acres, as in the case of Kahkewistahaw, the settlement wouldn't give that specific land back. It would give money and allow them to buy land and purchase it up to reserve status. In terms of the tribunal being able to award compensation, if the first nation can take that compensation and purchase land back--that land or other land--I think that would be a good way to do it.

One of the weaknesses right now is the additions to reserve policy, and that's dealt with in the political accord. One of the things that really have to go hand in hand with this legislation is that there has to be a process in place whereby first nations can use their compensation, whether it's awarded through the tribunal or through negotiations, to either purchase the land they lost or purchase other land and transfer it to reserves. Again, the bill has to be looked at in terms of the political accord, and those commitments have to be realized as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Thank you, Mr. Benson.

Mr. Albrecht, five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, panel members, for being here today.

I think all Canadians agree that the growth in the backlog of claims is unacceptable. Since 1993 it's grown from 350 to about 800, and that's certainly unacceptable. So I was glad to hear, in your opening statements, a number of phrases that indicate that this is a positive step.

You said this brings hope; you said that a number of times throughout your presentation, and I'm glad to hear that. You said you're tired of being dependent, and you're glad for the focus on economic development opportunities. You went on to say that you've never seen this kind of cooperation in your 40 years of involvement in government work. Those are all very positive comments that really give us hope as a committee that we can move ahead.

I'm wondering if you can comment a bit more on the issue of consultation. Chief Joseph, you indicated that there are 75 first nations groups in Saskatchewan, and you indicated that they're united in their efforts of supporting Bill C-30. As I said earlier, you've been positive in your analysis of the consultation process in general, but I'm sure you've read some of the comments of other chiefs from B.C. and Ontario who have been before this committee within the last few weeks, and their analysis has been less than positive in terms of consultation and opportunity for input. Can you give this committee assurance, as a member of the task force, that a concerted effort was made to engage in consultation with all first nations groups across Canada?

[Chief Lawrence Joseph]

Mr. Chairman, without any hesitation I would certainly agree with the member that there was effort. In fact, a very public announcement on June 12, 2007, by the Prime Minister of Canada to announce this effort, which is about.... In 60 years nothing has really moved. I think a lot of chiefs in Saskatchewan looked, at the very least, with great anticipation, positive anticipation to the fact that something was going to be done. The fact that the most senior member of government is actually taking this on, is announcing it, standing beside our national chief.... Further to that, there were resources given to each region to actually go about dialogues--not necessarily consultation, but dialogues with first nations people, given the fact, again, that the secrecy of the bill was.... That's the way it operates, I guess. We were told that we couldn't go out and spit out the details, the elements of the agreement, publicly to the media or to any person.

The bottom line is that at the very senior level there was mutual agreement, mutual respect. It wasn't something the government did in a back room and said, “Here, Indians, live with this.” That didn't happen.

Every regional chief--and I think every region has a regional chief--was given an opportunity to go and talk to each chief. We did that in Saskatchewan with technical teams, and we also had Assembly of First Nations lawyers and technicians come out and assist us with that.

As far as dialogue is concerned, it can't be packaged under a duty to consult. But certainly, sir, your comments are dead on when you say there were opportunities given.

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

But there wasn't, at the same time, a great degree of autonomy on the part of regional chiefs and groups to engage in differing levels of consultation.

There's one question I would like to follow up on, in that same vein. The groups that previously came before this committee have indicated a few proposed amendments--for example, having a panel of three, including a lay person with legal expertise, on these panels. There was also concern expressed that once a decision was reached, there would be no opportunity for further recourse. From my perspective, that's the whole purpose of this bill, to bring finality, to bring closure, and to bring resolution.

I'm wondering if you could comment on the appropriateness of some of those suggestions regarding the amendments that these other groups have proposed.

[Chief Lawrence Joseph]

Mr. Chairman, before I go to the vice-chief, let me say I think it's appropriate for every region to.... As I mentioned earlier, no bill is perfect, but it's appropriate for every chief in Canada to offer suggestions for improvement as they pertain to their territory. Overall—and I will be very cautious, as I don't speak for all of Canada—we support this. We say there are amendments that we could propose, but for all intents and purposes, this bill addresses most of our concerns. But it's never perfect.

I want to go to Chief Pratt to expand on the previous question, if I may.

[Vice-Chief Glen Pratt]

Thank you, Chief.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to add a couple of things.

First of all, when the cases on duty to consult came down at the Supreme Court level, the federation moved forward and implemented its own guidelines. We have our own FSIN consultation guidelines, which our chiefs enforce over us.

Secondly, we use a political process in which every chief is representing their members. As a result, if they don't feel they're consulted, then they have the ability to speak up and say they haven't been consulted and they won't vote in favour. We didn't get any of that during the assembly.

I think what it speaks to is the lack of the federal government responding to the duty-to-consult cases. There are no guidelines from the federal government; there are no guidelines from INAC. In the case of legislation we need a quicker and more timely response on duty to consult. The impact on aboriginal rights, on treaty rights, is not only on the land of our treaty rights, but also on the legislation.

I think what people are talking about is what “duty to consult” really means for first nations. Really, that's not defined very well. As a result, the response has been very slow. We're getting into a grey area. Without the guidelines or some joint policy on duty to consult, it's going to spill over into a lot of other areas.

I wanted to make that point. I also want to add one thing on the question—I think it was Mr. Lemay who brought it up— of the cost for the tribunal, but also the cost for the ICC. The Indian Claims Commission has time and again put a lot of effort and work into making recommendations. In most cases those recommendations haven't been followed. We were carrying the ICC, which I believe was fairly supportive of many of the claims, but in fact we weren't listening to them. We were spending a lot of money and really we weren't getting a bang for our buck. I wanted to add that.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Thank you, Mr. Pratt.

The last turn goes to Monsieur Lévesque from the Bloc, for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome, gentlemen. I would like to congratulate you for your dynamism and your sense of responsibility for the advancement of your nations. It's refreshing to see people who truly want to advance. Indeed, we are all familiar with the setbacks you have experienced in the past, and the misunderstandings which occurred when agreements were signed.

I would like to know how many communities and nations your federation represents.

[Chief Lawrence Joseph]

There are 74 first nations that are signatories to the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations convention. One first nation, by their own choice, want to be independent, but they reap the benefits of the work that is being done.

Across the province of Saskatchewan I believe there are about 133 to 150 first nations communities, reserves, that are occupied. The population off-reserve is anywhere from 50% to 55% urban. So we have first nations people living in urban centres. The number of communities is just a guesstimate; I should have done my homework on this, sir, but I think there are about 133 to 150 actual communities called Indian reserves.

For instance, in the northern part of the province, the La Ronge Indian Band have approximately eight communities where people are living. For Peter Ballantyne first nation, it's the same thing. We have first nations spread across the northern part of the province. We have 75 first nations, but as to actual reserves, we have multi-community reserve bands in the province of Saskatchewan.

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

You no doubt were in contact with each of these communities.

In answer to my colleague's question with regard to the fact that there is only one judge, you implied that you would rather see a judge hear claims on the ground in Saskatchewan. In your mind, should this be a judge from Saskatchewan or any judge, as long as this person goes to Saskatchewan?