Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on March 31st, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

You have two minutes.

[Chief Charles Weaselhead]

Thank you.

In my mind, I don't think we're going to come up with perfect legislation. I clearly don't have any answers for you if you're asking for recommendations on what the next step is.

I believe the Blood Tribe and two other nations were involved in what we refer to as the FNOGMMA, the oil and gas and moneys management legislation--First Nations Oil and Gas and Moneys Management Act. It's an opt-in clause, opt-in legislation for most first nations, if they wish to do so in that regard.

We're very clear in our mind what consultation is all about. We're going through that same issue with the Province of Alberta in that regard. I think I want to echo the comments that Chief Littlechild said. Perhaps there needs to be a mutual understanding of what consultation is all about and perhaps at that time we can at least make the best effort in coming up with a piece of legislation that is going to be a framework legislation and perhaps is not going to fit for everybody, but the bare essentials of that framework on legislation can meet needs with that.

I want to also acknowledge what Chief Shannacappo has said. Our mandate comes from our communities, our elders, and our Creator, so we are very strong in our positions about our treaty and our inherent rights.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Thanks.

I think Chief St. Denis has something to say.

[Chief Harry St. Denis]

Yes. On whether the province should be compelled to provide the lands, in a situation like Wolf Lake, because it is a claim for reserve lands, the federal government should compel the provinces to release the lands that have been negotiated with the federal crown.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Thank you.

Ms. Crowder from the NDP is next, for six minutes.

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

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank all the witnesses for taking the time to appear before us today.

My questions will be directed to Chief St. Denis, Chief Norman Young, and Chief Swan Shannacappo.

I want to acknowledge Chief Littlechild and Grand Chief Ed John for bringing in the UN declaration on indigenous rights, because I think it sets an important context. Even though Canada didn't sign on, the language around it is important in terms of fairness, justice, prompt decision-making, and those kinds of things. A couple of the issues you both identified speak to some of that. I think you've nailed it in terms of the resources that are going to be available to first nations in coming to the table, in both specific claims and treaties.

I had raised issues around resources required to address the backlog of specific claims, and unfortunately the answer that came back to us in a letter from the minister was really vague. There were some assurances that resources would be assigned--Department of Justice--but there are no concrete measures on how the current backlog would be addressed and how resources would come to first nations.

On the backlog, I've raised this a number of times, and I think it's really important to get people's input on this. The transitional clause outlined in clause 42 of the legislation for first nations who choose to engage in the specific claims process resets the clock to zero. So people who have been in the process for a number of years and eligible for the process really end up back at zero after all that work. The existing process will close as of December 31, 2008, and will no longer be available to people. So people will have two choices, the way I understand it: they can go to litigation, or they can come back into this process and have the clock reset to zero.

I wonder if you could comment on what else needs to be considered in the transitional period for people who are eligible for a specific claims process. I know that doesn't address some of your other issues around land claims and where you're not eligible.

[Chief Harry St. Denis]

I would like Pete Di Gangi to respond on behalf of our tribal council.

[Peter Di Gangi, Director, Algonquin Nation Secretariat]

Again, this is something I've been trying to take a close look at to see what the legislation says in terms of people who have claims submitted, wherever they may be. I can't really speak in general terms, except for the communities I work for and what we've looked at for them.

In Wolf Lake's case--again, more detail is provided in the brief--they submitted their claim in 1996. Around 2000, they went to the Indian Claims Commission. They started out with an inquiry. They went to mediation. Then in the fall of 2006, their inquiry was to be resumed. They were slated to go to an inquiry this year, but a decision was made by the government that they weren't sufficiently advanced in the inquiry process, so they have to sit out now.

It will probably take them about a year before the legislation is passed, then they're going to have to sit out another year, because there are the six months plus another six months. They're probably going to have to wait about two years to get to the tribunal, having been in the system since 1996. There's no telling how long the lineup will be once they get to the tribunal. So in Wolf Lake's situation, they've actually been set back a couple of years. They would be in the full inquiry process as we speak, but they were pulled out of it. They were never really told why or asked about it. They were just told that they were out. That's with respect to Wolf Lake.

With respect to Timiskaming, one of the problems we face is the issue of submission guidelines. That's covered under section 16 of the act, I believe. It gives the minister the discretion to prepare minimum standards for submission guidelines. What we've found is that since “Justice at Last” was announced, the specific claims branch has been trying to unilaterally impose new submission guidelines, without any discussion, that contravene the signed agreement the specific claims branch signed with our tribal council on claims submissions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

You have one minute.

[Peter Di Gangi]

With regard to that community, there is probably about five years' worth of research and development on claims that has all gone sideways now. And we haven't been able to get any assurances in terms of what it means for the development of those claims.

On the one hand, I can be specific. But again, there are a lot of vague items that have yet to be clarified that would help us all see a bit more clearly.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Thank you.

There are about 20 seconds left, if anyone else has a quick comment.

Go ahead, Mr. Braun.

[Carl Braun, Southern Chiefs' Organization]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As executive director of the treaty land entitlement committee, I'm directly involved in implementing settled claims. I use that word loosely, the term “settled”. From a first nations perspective, we like to use the word “settled” after the land has been returned and after all the obligations have been met.

The Manitoba framework agreement was signed in 1997. Currently we have 469 parcels of land that have been selected, and those go towards satisfying the 1.1 million acres. Of the 469 parcels, 54 have been converted. So we've been in operation for about 11 years, and we are 11% complete. This is, right now, on behalf of the signatory 15 first nations. I wanted to share that with the committee.

We have a lot of work to do. When you speak to claims, that, in my mind, is phase one, possibly, as a validation of a claim. There's a lot of work to do in phase two, as well, and then onward to development of the lands and management, and so on.

I just wanted to bring those numbers to light.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Thank you. I appreciate that.

The last questioner is Mr. Storseth, from the Conservative Party. You have six minutes, sir.

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

Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen.

As per usual at these committee meetings, it's nice to see you after a two-week break. Some things never change.

First of all, I want to thank the committee members for coming forward on some very interesting testimony today with some very good insights. I think it's very important that we set the record straight, though, on some of these issues.

This is not resetting the clock to zero. As far as I can tell from my reading of the legislation, what it does is give a voluntary option to first nations communities to go into a different system, from a system that we all agree needs to be changed. It eliminates the conflict of interest. It's going to speed up the process. This is something where we're constantly trying to fight some of the myths that are trying to be perpetuated from the other side.

I want to say hello to a fellow Albertan, Chief Littlechild, a former member of Parliament. It's good to have your input on this, not only as a former member of Parliament and a chief from Alberta, but also as one of the joint task force members.

Mr. Littlechild, we've heard from many witnesses in the past. We had Chief Lawrence Joseph here from Saskatchewan, who I believe represents about 75 first nations and over 122,000 first nation status people. I'll give one of the quotes from his testimony:

Some of these things that the Government of Canada is doing are fairly urgent. I'm very pleased to report to the committee that Saskatchewan first nations chiefs are certainly very supportive. We have attached a resolution, dated the middle of February, that fully endorses this and supports the work that was done by the joint task force.

He continues:

I personally have served in the government for 30 years and also as a chief for 10 years, and I have never seen this high-level type of commitment from government to actually do something jointly with first nations in a very strategic and structured way.

His vice-chief, Mr. Glen Pratt, went on to say:

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.

I think these are very important points. Mr. Simon has mentioned some of the same issues. All these people have gone forward in advocating that the bill move forward in its current form.

There are some aspects to the political agreement that need to be implemented that are outside the scope of this bill, but would you agree that this legislation needs to go forward in its current form and that it is groundbreaking and very important legislation for first nation people as well as the Government of Canada?

That was a mouthful, so I'll give you a second.

[Chief Wilton Littlechild]

Thank you very much.

Let me preface my answer to your question in this way. Unlike the federation in Saskatchewan, in Alberta we have Treaties 6, 7, and 8, wherein there is a protocol of respect so that we respect chiefs like Chief Weaselhead to speak for themselves on issues like this. Consequently, at the national assembly you will have seen that the Alberta chiefs abstained from the vote. Consequently, in my intervention today, I specifically addressed you as a joint task force member. From that perspective, I of course support the work of the task force and the resulting proposal that you have in front of you. It would be wrong for me to come back and start criticizing the work that we've put a lot of effort into. So, yes, I do support it.

That said, if you as a committee find there's something that improves the bill from the perspective of first nations, I can't say to you don't do it, because that is, of course, your prerogative.

I see this as a process. The process I was involved with I said could be improved at the front end. Now we've turned the bill over to you and it's your process. As I said, if you find something there from the witness testimony that strengthens it from a first nations perspective, I can't say to you don't do it. It's a dilemma for me as well, but from the joint task force and its membership, I have to say that I support it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

You have one minute.

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

Thank you very much.

Chief Weaselhead, I'd like to give you a chance to comment as well. I'd like to ask you a couple of specific questions, though I'll ask them all at once and ask you to keep the answers short so that we can get more in.

We all agree here that changes are needed in the process and in the system. I know that in your brief you outlined some specific things you would like to see changed, but do you agree that 80% of the claims will be speeded up through this process, leaving the larger claims to go through the same system? Do you agree that the $150 million will allow at least 80% of our claims to be speeded up?

Do you also agree that making this an independent process is a step forward and a step in the right direction?

Finally, do you also believe two more things--that this will speed up the process for these specific claims, and that the mandate to have a five-year review is also an important aspect of this?

I know you voiced some criticisms before, but to these questions I'd like to hear your response.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Chief Weaselhead, you will have the final word.

[Chief Charles Weaselhead]

Thank you very much.

In my mind, I do agree that the process will be speeded up for the majority of the claims, and more specifically for the small claims. I agree with that.

I also just want to echo what Chief Littlechild said. In general I support the bill moving forward, too, but there's the opportunity for us to be able to continue the process of discussions in regard to some specific changes that perhaps can be introduced. In my mind...I'm speaking on my behalf in regard to a big claim, for example; on a couple of occasions former Minister of Indian Affairs Jim Prentice spoke to me and said that big claims will go through a special cabinet mandate, but we don't see that as part of the legislation that's going to be binding as well.

From observations and from talking with other first nations and listening to other first nations in general, as I've said, I believe the process will help the majority of first nations people. Perhaps some first nations have some specific matters that still need to be addressed, and you've heard that around the table in the first panel and in the second panel, so if there's the opportunity to make amendments and the process can change as we move along so that we build on some of the issues and concerns that have been expressed before the committee, I think it's important to reiterate those concerns as well.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Thank you very much.

On behalf of all my committee colleagues, I'd like to thank the witnesses, both from this second panel and from the first one. We've had a very good conversation and discussion today. As I said, I appreciate your keeping your remarks brief and helping me keep on time. Thank you very much.

The meeting is adjourned.