Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on March 10th, 2008

[Darrell Paul]

Not only a broader role, but also, as you know, the superior courts have decided in a lot of cases that oral history is acceptable.

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

And it should be.

[Darrell Paul]

And it should be.

So the elders, we feel, could play a tremendous role in contributing their knowledge on these issues.

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

That would seem to make a lot of sense. So there could be a panel of elders who would be available to the justices on the tribunal, and these elders would be selected based on region and could provide some advice and support to the people who are coming before the tribunal. That would seem to make a lot of sense.

[Darrell Paul]

Yes, exactly.

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

I wanted to come back for a minute to the issue of landless bands. You talked about the Passamaquoddy, and of course we have cases all over the country of landless bands. In my own riding, the Lyackson are a band without land.

Unfortunately, as you're probably well aware, there are many places in British Columbia that don't have treaties, period, so those bands wouldn't even be eligible in many cases to come through a specific claims process. But for the Lubicon and the Passamaquoddy, because there's no ability to award land in this legislation, what kind of process would you like to see some of these landless bands have access to? You suggested there needed to be some sort of study to take a look at how additions to land could be incorporated into the specific claims process, but as a parallel process. Is that my understanding?

[Darrell Paul]

Not quite. What I was alluding to was the fact that the Passamaquoddy are denied...or are not even recognized as Indians, despite being signatories to the treaties signed by the British crown in the 1700s and earlier. These people are being ignored, and we felt they should be recognized. We're supporting them to have that recognition.

As far as land is concerned, they do have traditional territories, and we feel those lands should be allotted to these people.

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

So in terms of this particular piece of the legislation, it would need some amendment to allow for—

[Darrell Paul]

It would need amendment, but I don't think I'm really suggesting that. I'm simply suggesting or giving you an example of how things have evolved, where people and their claims have been forgotten. So this would fall pretty much under a comprehensive claim, rather than a specific claim.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Thank you, Mr. Paul.

The last questioner in this first round is Mr. Albrecht, for seven minutes.

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

Mr. Chair, thank you. I'd just like to begin this part of my time, and then I'll hand it over to my colleague, Mr. Storseth.

I just want to comment on and reply to a statement that Ms. Crowder made in regard to resetting the clock to zero. I think that's a misinterpretation of what this bill does. This bill is an alternative to the current methods being used. If a group is five minutes or two weeks or three months away from resolving a claim, they certainly don't have to answer to this stream of negotiations and/or the tribunal. So I think we need to keep that in mind. This is totally voluntary on the part of the first nations group to enter this method for resolving their claims.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

Now that we have that straight, Mr. Chair, I want to thank Mr. Paul very much for coming today. The weather is much noted in your arrival here today.

I do want to ask you a couple of questions on the process. You stated that you're emphatically behind this legislation, as you see it as a step forward from the status quo of the past.

I should say, Mr. Chair, that any time I have left over I'll be splitting with my colleague from Peace River.

We had Chief Lawrence Joseph here from the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations, representing 75 first nations and approximately 122,000 first nations status people. He has also been on this file for about 30 years, as you have. He had some very interesting things to say. I will paraphrase his statement that he had personally served in government for 30 years, and also as chief for 10 years, and had never seen this type of high-level commitment from the government to actually do something jointly with first nations in a strategic and structured way. And his vice-chief, Glen Pratt, said, “Personally, I think it's a real stepping stone forward in terms of having first nations at the table jointly recommending legislation. I think that in itself allows us to have greater input into the bill itself, rather than always reacting to the bills.”

Do you agree with these statements, Mr. Paul?

[Darrell Paul]

Yes, I do.

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

Do you believe the process undertaken by the joint task force, AFN, and government has been an adequate process to bring this legislation forward?

[Darrell Paul]

I think it has. And I would like to add, maybe for everyone's benefit, that it's a lot better than what was there before. It's a big improvement.

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

I agree. And I think that's one of the big things that--

[Darrell Paul]

Mind you, it's not perfect, as I pointed out. I think there's room there for improvement. We're of the opinion that it is workable and that there could be some amendments made to it that we feel would not cause a whole lot of pain on the part of the government.

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

I thank you for the time you took to bring forward some suggestions for the legislation. You noted five particular amendments that you would like to see. Obviously I'm not going to respond to those right here today, but we'll definitely make sure the government bureaucracy has an opportunity to get you some answers, if that's what you would like.

In supporting this bill and this legislation, recognizing the fact that it is moving in a positive step forward, would you suggest that we as a committee should be helping to expedite this through quickly, rather than letting it languish through the committee process for another two or three months?

[Darrell Paul]

Well, I really can't answer you on that one. I'm really not able to give you a definite answer on that one. That would be something that I would have to take back and discuss with those in authority.

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

All right, fair enough.

I have one more quick question that I would like to ask you in regard to the court process. I'll make just a couple of points.

One, I take note that Mr. Lemay says he doesn't trust the government, yet he's arguing for the government's legislation as is.

The other point is that Ms. Crowder talks about trust an awful lot, and I think she's right on that when it comes to political accords. It was taken note by Chief Lawrence Joseph--I can quote him on this, and quote others who've come before us--that this government actually went to the process of actually signing its political accord before it sent out the press release on it, which is a step in the right direction.

In your 30 years, have you seen such high-level address and impact from the government on this? As Chief Joseph brought up several times, the Prime Minister himself was one of the movers of this. Have you seen that in this file in your 30 years?

[Darrell Paul]

No, I haven't.

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

Thank you.

I'll give the rest of my time to Mr. Warkentin.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

You have a minute, Mr. Warkentin.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Thank you very much. I'll take what I can get.

Thank you, Mr. Paul, for coming and being our witness. As my colleague Brian Storseth mentioned, it's something for you to travel here today. Many of us were travelling over the weekend, and we know the nightmare out there at the airports.

You've had an opportunity to look at this legislation. I always like to ask the participants who come to testify before us for their personal feelings in terms of the ramifications for their own communities. Some people talked at some length with regard to moving from a confrontational approach to a point of negotiation.

I'm wondering if you could give us any examples of where the specific claims legislation might assist the people that you know of--for instance, the firsthand situations where an expedited process, or a process where people know the time limit is a maximum of six years, would significantly impact the communities that you are aware of.

[Darrell Paul]

I'll give you a couple of examples.

The timeframe of six years is a lot sooner than 25 years. With the first nation I come from, there was a land claim that was validated for negotiation in November 1984. I have to fault the department for why it has taken so long.

I'll quickly tell you why. When the file is handed over to the negotiators, they always have a lawyer from Justice sitting in, and I don't know why. After everything is all set to negotiate, then the negotiator decides to take a job someplace else. It takes another eight or nine months for that new negotiator to view the file, so that sets it back almost a year. If things get nicely started and it is the Justice lawyer's turn to either take a job somewhere else or go into private practice, then they have to appoint a new Justice lawyer. He has to take almost a year to familiarize himself with the file.

In this case, there have been at least seven negotiators and eight Justice lawyers, who I know of. You look at the time spent by these individuals. That settlement was finally just reached this past month--since 1984. That gives you an example of how sloppy these things have been. That's just one example.