Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on March 31st, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Excuse me, sir, but we're at a little over 14 minutes now. All of the members have your brief. If you could quickly touch on the points and wrap up, I would appreciate that.

[Chief Charles Weaselhead]

With regard to non-derogation, tribunal membership, and appointments, although the protocol agreement between the minister and the national chief in relation to specific claims reform provides that the national chief of the AFN will be engaged in the process for recommending members to the tribunal, we question why this is not provided for in the proposed legislation.

I will skip functions, power, and duties of the tribunal.

On specific claims, the bill does not address any of the inherent problems in the current specific claims process.

I'll go to item 7, which is very important to us, which is claim limit and the process for larger claims. The tribunal shall not award total compensation in excess of $150 million. This limit fails to take into account those specific claims that are larger than $150 million. The bill is silent with respect to a process for handling those claims. It is simply inadequate for Canada to suggest that since those claims are less numerous than the claims under $150 million, no legislative process needs to be created. Instead, a process is reportedly going to be worked out through the protocol agreement between the minister and the national chief. Protocol agreements are not binding. This is very problematic for the Blood Tribe, particularly in relation to, but not necessarily limited to, our big claim, which falls outside the maximum claim limit.

What process will be developed to handle that claim or any other claim in excess of that amount? Who will develop that process? Since it is the Blood Tribe's claim and not the AFN's claim, it is imperative that the Blood Tribe be involved in any discussions related to setting up a process to deal with those claims. It is the Blood Tribe's understanding that the federal government will earmark $250 million per year for payments authorized by the tribunal and for payments resulting from negotiated settlements. This will be an insufficient amount of money if there are several large claims, even if each falls below the $150 million cap.

Thank you very much, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Thank you.

Now for our second presentation, we'll go to Rick Simon.

[Rick Simon, Regional Chief, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, Assembly of First Nations]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's an honour for me to be here this afternoon in front of the standing committee, listening to the presentations on Bill C-30.

The joint process to develop Bill C-30 and the political agreement, as many others have reiterated before me, has been a very positive experience in working with the Government of Canada. I believe strongly that the relationship between former minister Jim Prentice and National Chief Phil Fontaine in working on the claims commission in the past has been instrumental in making this happen. I want to acknowledge that, as well as the work that my colleague Shawn Atleo, as well as Mr. Bruce Carson from the Prime Minister's Office, put into this. Very clearly, it had to be very, very high-level work to bring us to this point having an opportunity to talk about an actual bill. So in my view, like that of many others before me, it's unprecedented and has to be acknowledged.

We support the bill and the political agreement in its current form as a substantial improvement over the status quo, and over any other previous attempt to address this issue. I've been a regional chief since 1994, and for part of that time I worked with the Atlantic chiefs, who made their presentation earlier. I was a former member of that joint task force back then. I sat in on a number of committee meetings across the country, trying to do the same work we're talking about here today.

To see and to have the ability to actually put some legislation in place that speaks to the things we had issues with, like the government being the judge and jury, has been quite interesting to see happening.

Bill C-30 is not about trying to fix all of the inadequacies of the specific claims policy or process. There are inadequacies in the specific claims policy and process overall. The matters addressed in the companion political agreement are intended to address related policy and process issues.

My colleagues from the Atlantic chiefs, Chief Noah Augustine and Chief Lawrence Paul, under the banner of the Atlantic Policy Congress, spoke to that earlier about how we as the Atlantic region plan to keep the government's feet to the fire in relation to this political agreement.

Like you, Mr. Bruinooge, I was at that treaty conference last week. Being one of the first components of the political accord, it's very good that it happened. I was very excited to be there and was very happy to make a presentation on behalf of some of the issues we have in relation to treaty in the Atlantic region.

At the same time, I've been at many treaty conferences in the past. Hopefully, unlike last week's, this isn't going to be sitting on my shelf collecting dust; we hope to see the political accord as a means to implement this. It's very important that we show we can do that.

The process used to develop the bill and the political agreement establishes a high-water mark that needs to be replicated in other policy areas. I think we have a real opportunity here to move forward in a number of other areas, as a means to engage us very clearly at the highest level, between the government and the Assembly of First Nations. So I see this as a real opportunity.

In addition to the joint drafting with Canada, the Assembly of First Nations has been engaged in information sharing and dialogue with first nations in the regions. We have striven to support this regionally to the best of our abilities.

In Nova Scotia, we did it through the two tribal councils, one being the Union of Nova Scotia Indians, and the other being the Confederacy of Mainland Mi'kmaq. Prior to the assembly coming in and giving them an overview of what the bill was, they were both adamant. In fact, they made us sign papers saying it was not consultation. We signed them. We told them that consultation is the Government of Canada's job, not ours. We were there and we were supportive of this effort, but at the end of the day, if there's more consultation to be done, that rests with the government, not with us.

So there are many positive things to be learned from this process, including the need to engage first nations directly and within a timeframe that is reasonable. As you're aware, the bill was introduced, I believe, on November 27. By the time we had a chance to analyze it, to try to do some regional sessions and sit down as the chiefs of Canada by December 11, it was a very tight timeframe. It's very challenging.

While we strongly support this bill in its current form without amendments, this should not preclude others from suggesting amendments. That's a basic democratic premise to anybody, and first nations as well. So we're not here to say that everything is perfect, by any means, but we're definitely supportive of the work that has brought it to this stage.

The real priority with respect to implementing this bill and the political agreement must be in living up to the commitments that these embody. Therefore, it's important to fully implement the undertakings and the joint process outlined in the political agreement in a timely fashion. A fair and independent tribunal that can make binding decisions has absolutely gone way beyond some of the work that's been done in the past, and I have to acknowledge that. What I would like to see from here on in is, is this bill implemented?

We understand that Parliament has a role to play. Ultimately, as the first nations, we really don't care who the government is that implements it. We just want to see this bill implemented, because there has been so much work done and it's gone so far beyond where we've been in the past.

With that, thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Thank you, Mr. Simon.

The next presentation is from the Algonquin Nation Secretariat. Will we have one or two speakers?

[Grand Chief Norman Young, Algonquin Nation Secretariat]

I'm going to share with Chief St. Denis.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All right.

[Grand Chief Norman Young]

Kwe. Hello.

Good day, committee members. We are pleased to appear today to speak to Bill C-30. We understand that time is at a premium, so we will table a report containing detailed comments, and provide you with highlights.

The Algonquin Nation Secretariat (ANS) is a tribal council representing three Algonquin First nations whose territory lies in Northwestern Quebec and Northeastern Ontario: Barriere Lake, Timiskaming, and Wolf Lake. Each of our members has very different fact situations, with a variety of potential claims under the specific claims policy. None of our members has signed a land cession treaty, meaning that we still possess aboriginal title to our traditional territory, the basis for a comprehensive claim.

The Committee wants to know if the proposed bill will effectively address the existing conflict of interest found in the current process, and if it is better than the status quo. The Committee also wants to know whether the federal government's proposals will address the backlog of over 800 claims.

In general, if the bill is passed, it will be an improvement, but there are a number of key issues which leave lingering doubts and concerns. We want to provide the Committee with some examples of our experiences since Justice at Last was announced, and where improvements are needed. We strongly support the amendments to Bill C-30 which the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador recommended to your Committee on March 10 last. Our members are directly affected by the proposed definition of what is, and what is not, an eligible claim, and we want to stress the importance of these proposed amendments. Further details are provided in our brief.

One of the objectives of specific claims reform has been to do away with federal conflicts of interest. Despite being the guilty party, it also controls the policy, process and funding. Bill C-30 goes part way towards dealing with this, by creating a tribunal to hear some types of claims.

However, claims will still be subject to conflicts of interest at the front end, prior to the federal government's acceptance of a claims submission, and for another six years after that. And the biggest claims will still be exposed to conflicts of interest throughout the process.

As we explained in our brief, these conflicts of interest are real and they have a direct impact on the management of our claims. Regardless of the benefits of the proposed tribunal, we remain concerned about the potential for abuse and lack of accountability at the front end of the claims process. We justify this concern by the way Wolf Lake and Timiskaming's claims have been treated since Justice at Last was announced.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

You're at five minutes.

[Chief Harry St. Denis, Wolf Lake First Nation, Algonquin Nation Secretariat]

In the case of both first nations, since June of 2007 the federal government has acted unilaterally and arbitrarily by changing the agreed upon approach to resolve our members' claims, without consultation and without our consent.

For Wolf Lake, this has meant removing them from the claims commission process and shutting down the commission, leaving us with no forum if Bill C-30 does not pass. For Timiskaming, this involves the apparent breach of a signed agreement that had been mandated by band council resolution. In both cases, these actions by the federal government have set back our members' efforts to have their claims resolved and have shaken our confidence in the process.

There is a lack of accountability and transparency in the way these things have been done. We cannot get answers or justification from SCB's actions. Without satisfactory answers, we consider SCB's conduct to be in bad faith. This kind of behaviour is of concern, and we ask if the committee can do anything to assist us in this regard, either by making appropriate inquiries or by mentioning these cases in your report.

All of this is in contrast to our experience with Bill C-6, which, for the record, we opposed. At that time, federal officials consulted with our members and provided assurances that the first nation claimant would decide whether to proceed under the new proposed legislation or stick with the process they were already in. We have seen no such effort to constructively engage our members this time around.

Since June of 2007, the Department of Indian Affairs could have used its dealings with first nations claimants to build support for its new approach by showing us how the changes will actually benefit our members. We would welcome the opportunity to work cooperatively with SCB in any way. Unfortunately, this has not happened, and instead, by its actions, SCB has done the opposite.

We agree that there is an urgent need to improve the existing policy and process. Certainly Bill C-30 is an improvement over Bill C-6, but many of the key unresolved issues have been put off to the political accord, and the commitments contained in that political accord remain as vague today as they were when they were announced in November 2007. We heard the federal government saying “trust us”, but this is a difficult proposition, given our most recent experience.

Once adopted, the bill will become law, but there is nothing to compel implementation of the political accord. We are not against reform of specific claims, but we do have legitimate concerns and questions, which have yet to be answered in a satisfactory way. If the bill does proceed, perhaps Parliament or this committee could play some kind of oversight role to monitor the federal government's handling of the transition, paying special attention to the front end of the process where the federal conflict of interest will remain alive and well.

One other important point is that whether Bill C-30 becomes law or not, the lack of resources within the federal government and on the first nations side must be addressed. Under the current framework, there are simply not enough resources to get rid of the backlog and support increased activity and negotiations. By the same token, the large agenda proposed by the federal government in connection with Bill C-30 cannot succeed without significant additional resources for both federal and first nations sides.

I would just like to comment briefly on one specific section of the bill as it applies directly to the Wolf Lake First Nation. Section 14 of the bill gives a definition of a specific claim. Paragraph 14(1)(c) says a claim may be filed with the tribunal for

a breach of a legal obligation arising from the Crown’s provision of reserve lands, including unilateral undertakings that give rise to a fiduciary obligation at law....

The Wolf Lake First Nation is one of five historic first nations in Quebec that do not have reserve lands set aside under the Indian Act for their use and benefit. So in our case, there was no provision of reserve lands. The wording in that section does not take our fact situation into account. This should be corrected by an amendment such as the one that was already proposed by the AFNQL in their submission, and it could read “referring to provision of or failure to provide reserve lands” instead of it just saying “or the provision of reserve lands”.

That's it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Thank you very much, gentlemen.

Our final presentation is from Manitoba's Southern Chiefs' Organization. I believe Grand Chief Shannacappo will begin.

[Grand Chief Morris Swan Shannacappo, Southern Chiefs' Organization]

Thank you. I want to offer you a gift of tobacco for hearing our presentation.

[Witness speaks in his native language]

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I thank you for the time you've given us here. My English nickname is Morris Swan Shannacappo. My Indian name is Good Sounding One, so I'm going to try to make things sound good for you this afternoon.

I want to thank you for hearing our people, for letting us come here to present. You heard some of the past that was involved here, Bill C-6, that we also opposed. Today I went through a short ceremony by offering you ceremonial tobacco for having us here to present. We do things by custom and tradition, much as Canada's laws were perceived and done, all by custom and tradition.

First of all, I want to say I represent 36 first nations in Manitoba, Treaties 1 to 5. I do not purport to represent their treaties' positions from Treaty 1 to Treaty 5, but I am also a spokesperson for Treaty 4 in the province of Manitoba. There are seven Treaty 4 in Manitoba, and the remainder of the 34 first nations in Treaty 4 are in Saskatchewan

In 1880 Alexander Morris, then the lieutenant-governor of the province of Manitoba, authored The Treaties of Canada with the Indians of Manitoba and the North-West Territories. The book, well known by all students of history, contains copies of the treaties concluded between 1850 in Ontario and 1877 in Alberta, and also includes firsthand accounts by the treaty commissioners as well as the reports to government about the treaties.

Lieutenant-Governor Morris was passionate about the importance of fulfilling those treaties and the reason to fulfill them. The closing words of his book deserve repeating, and I quote them verbatim:

...let us have a wise and paternal Government faithfully carrying out the provisions of our treaties, and doing its utmost to help and elevate the Indian population, who have been cast upon our care, and we will have peace, progress, and concord among them in the North-West; and instead of the Indian melting away, as one of them in older Canada tersely put it, “as snow before the sun,” we will see our Indian population, loyal subjects of the Crown, happy, prosperous and self-sustaining, and Canada will be enabled to feel, that in a truly patriotic spirit, our country has done its duty by the red men of the North-West, and thereby to herself. So may it be.

Some 127 years later, on September 12, 2007, the Honourable Jim Prentice, in a press release entitled “Specific Claims: Justice at Last”, explained that in a general sense, first nations specific claims arise from the failure of the federal government to live up to its legal obligations originating with historic treaties. The Indian Act or other formal agreements between first nations and the crown—Lieutenant-Governor Morris had it right in 1880. The purpose of these treaties is to ensure aboriginal and first nation Canadians are happy, prosperous, and self-sustaining.

The reconciliation thus called for by the courts and by many of the enlightened in our society is in honouring these treaty commitments in their totality, not to the limited degree the present Canadian government feels it is prepared to afford. The sad truth is that you parliamentarians are being wilfully blind if you believe anything short of a complete and honourable fulfillment of every aspect of the treaties will result in the reconciliation you seek, which we first nations and Canadians deserve.

The treaties include promises related to land, including a large number of outstanding land entitlements and to other important and tangible promises, such as education, health, and the preservation of our culture, all of which must be honoured if we are to achieve Morris's vision of a happy, prosperous, self-sustaining people.

Still today, right across Canada, the ownership of land controlled by Indian people is 0.04%. That's not even half of one percent. When we look at the province of Manitoba, we control 0.04%.

While I do not pretend there are not some very important financial promises with the historic treaties, as you could call them, to us they are treaties. They just need to be shined up a bit. Maybe they were assigned historically, but they're still alive and well and present today.

It is clear to any first nation person, and it should be also clear to you, that the most important features of the treaties are the promises relating to land, the preservation of our way of life, and the right to use the bounty of those lands to maintain, sustain, and nourish our people and our political institutions as well as our languages and our culture.

In Manitoba there are literally tens of thousands of acres of land that are due, under Treaties 1 through 5 and under the 1997 treaty land entitlement agreement that Canada is a party to. A vast amount of this land has been identified by the entitlement first nations but has not been converted to reserve for a variety of what we say are invalid excuses. We should be able to access the specific claims process to secure declaratory or injunctive relief compelling Canada to do what it is obligated to do under the treaties and the 1997 treaty land entitlement agreement.

As presently drafted, even if we could get in the door to have the claim heard, all we can secure under the present specific claims wording is a money judgment, in exchange for which our rights to the very land in question would be extinguished by legislative fiat under subclause 21(1). To make matters worse, the extinguishment comes without the normal protections currently in the Indian Act that require a referendum process before interests in land can be surrendered.

The bill has been drafted completely within the paradigm of the colonizer, and it is another example of how the colonizer continues to invite us to further perpetuate our colonization. When you knowingly shoot your own foot off, does it hurt any less? Won't your foot still be gone?

Restricting the specific claims process to monetary awards, paragraph 20(1)(a), when so much of our treaty claims involve lands and resources, is unfair. To restrict those monetary awards to pecuniary losses only, item 20(1)(d)(ii), as opposed to losses for such things as education, culture, and language, the very things the treaties were designed to protect, is unfair. To cap those awards to $150 million, paragraph 20(1)(b), is unfair. To further reduce the value of those awards by forcing first nations with similar claims arising from the same fact situations to share that limited pie, subclause 20(5), is unfair. Any restriction by legislative fiat at all on what the treaty right would otherwise entitle the claimant to is contrary to the honour of the crown.

As a group, our people are poor. We suffer from unemployment, poor education, and poor health. We are owed much, but we have not been allowed to partake in the bounty of this country, as originally intended by our treaties. We agreed to share; we did not agree to impoverish ourselves.

In a word, we are hungry. We are starving from the lack of justice. We suffer from a poverty of options, and our children are committing suicide or partaking in other activities that are not normal within our culture and our people.

My fear, as a leader, for my people is that we'll sell our right to the proper share of the bounty due to us in exchange for some food to limit starvation—any food today, in fact.

The future right to eat as a king in the finest restaurant is meaningless when you are starving right now. It doesn't take much imagination to know what the hungry person is literally forced to do to survive. He sells his rights for a slice of bread and some water. Is that justice? Is that the honourable fulfillment of an obligation? No one here would suggest it is.

Why, then, are many celebrating the specific claims legislation? I can only think of those of my brothers who support it, so desperately hungry for something that they will take a slice of bread; they will take anything and with a smile.

I stand before you determined, undeterred. I know who I am as Anishinabe. I am Anishinabe from top to bottom and business all in between. I stand before you, telling you here there'll be no true reconciliation until the treaties are honoured in their entirety and we learn to do business as equals.

There will be no peace, no solution to what I've heard called the Indian problem. The truth is that I heard it's never been an Indian problem. In reality it's a Canadian problem, one that Canada must own up to and properly redress.

The current legislation offers false hope in that regard, in that it is disguised opportunity for us to colonize ourselves. The oppressed are invited to become their own oppressor.

Other speakers have expressed their concern that the tribunal will not be sufficiently independent, such that justice will not be done, but will only be seen to be done. For example, in terms of the appointment process, under the current bill it is effectively the federal cabinet alone that has the right to decide who should be appointed to sit as adjudicators on this tribunal. I remind you that we made treaty with the Queen on a nation-to-nation basis, and that the Queen's representatives continue to perpetuate the myth that they alone can govern our traditional lands and natural resources.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Can you just wrap up, please?

[Grand Chief Morris Swan Shannacappo]

Okay.

I didn't intend my comments to personally attack the honesty and integrity of any individual jurist; however, we must remember that judges within Canada are nurtured by and a product of the very legal system that has oppressed my people for hundreds of years.

I'm not afraid to have eminent foreign jurists--and there are a lot of them to be found through the offices of the United Nations--to sit in judgment of my rights and the rights of Canada. On that note, it troubles me that Canada voted against, and chooses not to implement, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The declaration of rights was viewed as acceptable and appropriate by the vast majority of countries on these problems.

There were only four countries in the world that voted against the declaration; Canada was one of the four. That demonstrates to me that Canada, as a country, was not able to accept as reasonable what the rest of the world sees as reasonable.

In essence, we are asking for international intervention, or international participation, to be able to talk in areas of the land when we come to butt heads and not have any movement. I think the Maoris have certainly had some success within their own country in honouring the treaties that were written and in sharing in the bounty of the land as well.

Those are some of the things that we would like to bring to the table here.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Thank you very much.

Again I say to all the witnesses that I apologize for pushing you through the time today, but we do have a vote to get to. Typically we end our meeting at 5:30, and a couple of my colleagues have to leave at this time because they have other commitments. The balance of us are happy to stay, and we're going to have one round of questioning of six minutes. That should get us done by around six o'clock.

I'd like to start with the Liberal Party. Ms. Keeper, please go ahead.

[Tina Keeper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank all the presenters for today's presentations.

What is clear is that there is a difference of opinion about how we should proceed with this specific claims legislation.

I'm sharing my time with the member for Nunavut.

We've heard about lack of consultation. Mr. Simon said that is the obligation of the federal government. We've heard about the backlog. We've heard about the extinguishment legislation. In fact, in terms of the AFN, one of their documents does make a specific reference to the fact that in this legislation it is very clear on the whole issue of the land that the federal government is discharging its obligation as a good and prudent fiduciary in imposing extinguishment.

How do we move forward? How do we reconcile the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples with a particular piece of legislation that does call for extinguishment? It's just that we're hearing so many presentations. Some people oppose it; some people feel we should move forward with amendments; some people feel we should move swiftly through this process to make sure it moves through the legislative process.

I'd like to ask, from the different perspectives, what you think about that whole requirement of extinguishment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

We have about three and a half minutes, so if several members want to answer, I'd ask you to keep it brief.

[Tina Keeper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

I will ask Mr. Simon and Mr. Littlechild to respond.

[Chief Wilton Littlechild]

There were several questions there, Mr. Chairman. Let me try to address some of them and then refer to my colleague, Chief Simon.

On the issue of consultation, I think it's very important to reflect on the previous witness's suggestion that we need to define what we mean by “consultation” very carefully. In my view, for example, if you juxtapose it to the UN declaration—as an example, article 19—we have guidelines there as to what it could mean.

If you reflect on the past 60 years, would it not be argued that over 60 years there has been a lot of consultation? Wouldn't the previous forms of draft legislation have included a lot of consultation, although using a different process, as I was alluding to? The issue of consultation is really a spectrum, in my view, from a low level of activity that simply could be correspondence or telephone calls or private discussions to the very end extent, which calls for prior and informed consent.

Within that scope of activity, we have several guidelines that we can refer to as to when is it that we have consulted enough to be able to move forward with legislation like this.

With regard to the extinguishment question—and I apologize for referring to international references, but that's been my arena for the last 30 years—there are a couple of international treaty-body decisions that call on Canada not to use extinguishment policy anymore. That's one view; the second part of it, of course, is “unless there's consent” by the first nation or the indigenous nation involved in the negotiating process. They do consent to extinguish title in some cases, based on fair and independent negotiations, and I think that's also one perspective.

I guess what I'm saying is that there's a whole spectrum of considerations. What happens, as I think you know, when you have a committee like this that invites public dialogue, is that you're going to get a lot of different views, and we need to balance those views to guide us in going forward.

[Rick Simon]

The comment I would make in relation to my discussion around this notion of consultation is specific to the region that I represent, Nova Scotia.

As you're aware, in Nova Scotia we are engaged in treaty and aboriginal title negotiations under the “made in Nova Scotia“ process. Within that process we have what we refer to as an umbrella agreement. Many times in the past we have had little snippets of paper dragged into court from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans or the Department of Indian Affairs, using this whole notion of consultation and “we spoke to you”. Under this umbrella agreement, there's a political agreement between the federal and provincial governments that any discussions we have under that umbrella will not be thrown into the courts, assuming our “made in Nova Scotia” process negotiations go nowhere and we end up back in the courts.

So we're very clear and very adamant that anything in relation to consultation needs to be clearly called that. And it's not the Assembly of First Nations' role; this is the Government of Canada's bill, and it's their job. If they choose to go out on consultations with this, then they have to go through the processes within our region that they have agreed to.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Mr. St. Denis promised me he'd be very short.

[Chief Harry St. Denis]

Just on the issue of some people believing we should move this really quickly, personally I don't believe that may be the most prudent approach. I think it's more important that we get it right than that it be rushed through Parliament.

The bill, if it has all-party support, which is what everybody is hearing here, should still, even if there's an election, survive, in our view. I think it's more important to get it right than to move it through Parliament too swiftly.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Thank you, sir.

Monsieur Lemay, for six minutes.

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

I will catch the ball that Chief St. Denis has thrown on the fly. I would say to him that if elections were held tomorrow morning, under the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, this bill would die on the Order Paper if it was not passed. The situation is urgent, but we are not necessarily facing an emergency. I'm not trying to make a political statement. Maybe there will not be elections tomorrow morning, but what we want first and foremost is to hear the views of first nations.

I understood what Chief Littlechild said. I cannot say if this is the perception of the grand chiefs who are here today, but if passed, this bill will provide for the creation of a special claims tribunal, which is not a mandatory process. If this bill were passed tomorrow morning, you, the chiefs, would not be required to use this process for your special claims. You could continue to use the old process. However, you need to understand that that might take longer.

I have only one question for you, and I ask it because you come from all provinces. What course of action do you recommend that we follow in dealing with the provinces? Some of you lay claim to provincial lands. What are we to do if the provinces do not want to be a part of this special claims process? Do you see a way of resolving this dilemma? Should we amend the bill so that provinces are required to participate from the start of the claims process? What would you suggest we do? I didn't hear anyone talk about this today. Maybe I'm wrong, but I do not recall hearing anyone speak to this subject, either in English or in French.

[Grand Chief Morris Swan Shannacappo]

I guess what we are recommending is to definitely try to build on the process and go ahead with it. But when it comes to what I spoke on and the relation of treaty, I don't have a treaty with Manitoba. I don't even have a treaty with Canada. I have a treaty with the crown in right of Canada. So I'd like to involve my original treaty partners that signed the Constitution back to Canada or repatriated it, because that's who should also be sitting at this table.

As far as the province goes, there's a lot of unfinished treaty business in the area of resources, mineral rights. All that has to be talked about yet, because we didn't give up that right to anybody, and in our eyes, the province certainly doesn't own any of that. The province to us is just another corporation and that's how we view it and that's how we were taught to view it by our elders, by our legal people, and on the international level as well.